Both Obama and McCain are shunning the hands-off regulatory approach

[spice756]

Both Obama and McCain are shunning the hands-off regulatory approach of the Bush Administration in favor of stricter oversight



Wall Street just jumped into the race for the White House in a big way. The ongoing crisis in credit markets—and taxpayer assistance for a growing list of troubled companies—is taking center stage for both Presidential campaigns. The issue is also offering voters a peek at each candidate's approach toward greater regulation of financial markets.

So both Obama and McCain want to control the financial markets not like Bush?

What is going on with the credit market problems?




Both campaigns are fervently advocating tougher government oversight—a departure from the Bush Administration's more hands-off approach to financial matters. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) argues that America needs a "21st-century regulatory system" and has seized on the liquidity crisis as an indictment of Republican policies. "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed," Obama said in a Sept. 16 speech in Golden, Colo.


I say do nothing than we can prove those libertarians why a free market does not work.No government money to help them out or control.Or else the libertarians are going to say it is the government is why it is mess up than capitalism.



Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of excessive government intervention, vowed on Sept. 16 to "put an end…to running Wall Street like a casino." At an Orlando rally Sept. 16, McCain called for a high-level commission to investigate the securities industry, and for ending "multimillion-dollar payouts to CEOs that have broken the public trust."

Oh so the CEO get to walk free with multimillion-dollar hell nice :tt1:and everyone is poor.And who is running Wall Street like a casino it is not just people who will like to get rich fast.





Analysts are trying to decipher how all the rhetoric could translate into action in a new Administration. "We're going to get some sort of financial regulatory bill in 2009," says Dan Clifton, a Washington-based analyst with Strategas Research Partners (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=37345617), a New York investment research firm. "The question is, what will it look like? Obama says he'll reject Bush's deregulation philosophy. McCain says he'll reform Washington and Wall Street. We're waiting for their specific plans." Clifton says analysts are trying to discern whether, if elected, McCain would adopt a "pragmatic" agenda that would "balance regulation with growth," or whether he would extend Bush's legacy. "That's the big wild card about John McCain." Obama, Clifton says, is more predictable: "He's clearly about regulation
."

Well so McCain want to control the financial markets ?


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080916_554176.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index +-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

[Oneironaut]

The first thing we have to think about is that these candidates are both bourgeois politicians. They are both capitalists and will never go against Wall Street. While Obama may make slight changes which will without a doubt have little effect, the bullshit McCain spits is merely that, a bunch of bullshit. He is merely playing with voters and saying he has there "back" as stockholders, but we can be sure he will do nothing more than speak of the issue and possibly hold some hack-committee that will write a book on the issue, but nothing will be done. While this economic crisis is going to hit workers very hard, it is exciting to see another rupture emerging from capitalism. If all goes as planned, we organize, this could be one of the last straws capitalism can adapt to. History will be our advocate...

[spice756]

The problem is alot of US people for what ever the reason back the republican on social views.And economics some think the republican are better and other think the democratic are better.

The US people some how think the republican is for them and this is not true .I believe the US media and US propaganda is what is causing those social views to back the republican .Or the church or some thing .

What I have read is most US people fear free healthcare and the government.And the thought of welfare state or socialism to them is like swiming in lake with skarks.

To the left comes up with reason why they think like that they just beating a dead long.The left has to find out why they think like that and how to educate them.

[ckaihatsu]

Of course the bourgeois government comes to the rescue of its bourgeois economic system.

As a result of the bankruptcy of the financial system the candidates can't use the 'free-market-is-the-best' line anymore -- McCain got lashed in the mainstream press for saying that the system's fundamentals are still sound.

So now the ground on the right side of the political spectrum has fallen away, moving the cliff edge leftward. Both candidates have had to change their marketing as a result. Remember, bourgeois politics / government makes sense if you just think of it as a giant corporate enterprise / franchise called "nation".

The fundamentals are *not* sound because the capitalist system, along with the global nation-state system, is experiencing financial balkanization. This is the problem of valuation given the emergence of sinkholes of bad debt everywhere. No one wants to take a step because no one knows where the solid ground is anymore -- whether the next securitized debt instrument is going to be sound or not.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Hit The North]

A whole paradigmatic system of running capitalism is crashing down around the ears of the global bourgeoisie.

Alastair Darling the British New Labour chancellor is also making noises about tightening regulations on the banks:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/22/alistairdarling.taxandspending

Interesting times ahead!

[ckaihatsu]

The IMF is visiting the U.S. -- isn't that a precedent?

Wouldn't there be some restructuring accord necessarily in the works, like 1985's Plaza Accord?



---

Plaza Accord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Plaza Accord or Plaza Agreement was an agreement signed on September 22, 1985 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City by 5 nations - France, West Germany, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. The five agreed to, amongst others, depreciate the US dollar in relation to the Japanese yen and German Deutsche Mark by intervening in currency markets.

The exchange rate value of the dollar versus the yen declined 51% over the two years after this agreement took place. Most of this devaluation was due to the $10 billion spent by the participating central banks. Currency speculation caused the dollar to continue its fall after the end of coordinated interventions. Unlike some similar financial crises of the 1990s (such as the Mexican and the Argentinian financial crises of 1994 and 2001 respectively), this devaluation was planned, done in an orderly manner with pre-announcement, and did not lead to financial panic in the world markets.

The reason for the dollar's devaluation was twofold: to reduce the US current account deficit, which had reached 3.5% of the GDP, and to help the US economy to emerge from a serious recession that began in the early 1980s. The U.S. Federal Reserve System under Paul Volcker had overvalued the dollar enough to make industry in the US (particularly the automobile industry) less competitive in the global market. Devaluing the dollar made US exports cheaper to its trading partners, which in turn meant that other countries bought more American-made goods and services. The Plaza Accord was successful in reducing the US trade deficit with Western European nations but largely failed to fulfill its primary objective of alleviating the trade deficit with Japan because this deficit was due to structural rather than monetary conditions. US manufactured goods became more competitive in the exports market but were still largely unable to succeed in the Japanese domestic market due to Japan's structural restrictions on imports. The recessionary effects of the strengthened yen in Japan's export-dependent economy created an incentive for the expansionary monetary policies that led to the Japanese asset price bubble of the late 1980s. The Louvre Accord was signed in 1987 to halt the continuing decline of the US Dollar.

It is unlikely that such an arrangement would have succeeded in the long run, as the global economy is too large, heterogeneous, and fluid for even the most sophisticated central banks to effectively intervene.[citation needed]

The signing of the Plaza Accord was significant in that it reflected Japan's emergence as a real player in managing the international monetary system.