Like, whoa.
NYTimes.com: Treasury Dept. Plan Would Give Fed Wide New Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/29regulate.html?ex=1364529600&en=da56dc4e51747775&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
(Sorry, you may have to watch this bloody advertisement before you can read the article. It won't let you skip it. Just cope.)
Does this sound like an extension of federal regulatory power to anyone else? Dude, I thought the guys at the Treasury Department were supposed to be Republicans.
Okay, so Paulson says he's "not suggesting that more regulation is the answer," but that "we should and can have a [regulatory] structure that is designed for the world we live in, one that is more flexible.” Huh? Once we have a wider window onto all the crazy shit the banks and other corporate-financial institutions perpetrate to make money-- or to make bank, and thus be money, as some of us would say-- and assuming the press actually does some investigative reporting on the issue (it's a special occasion), public outrage over any semi-criminal activity would likely (eventually) lead to an expansion of powers of regulation commensurate with the proposed enlargement of powers of oversight.
This pronouncement isn't so remarkable in terms of content as it is for what it shows about the degree to which companies and financial institutions are allowed to occlude their internal activity. Not that economic structure ----> culture (I'm not a Marxist), but it does play a large role in the complex interactions that produce contemporary culture and society. Generally (owing to both corporate obfuscation and old-fashioned nonchalant ignorance), we don't know enough about the way our economy works. The function of the economy is a political issue-- maybe the political issue-- and we need to get educated.
At least, I do.
In the vain of political stuff, I highly recommend Said's essay "Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies and Community."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think my favorite part of the article was the part where they talked about what "Mr. Paulson will say in a speech on Monday, according to a draft."
Which means you're probably completely right--we do need to get educated.
That can be our big hobby this summer.
I'm not at all surprised.
Most people who bill themselves as "economically conservative," "libertarian," &c are no such thing. They are corporatists, and corporations have profit margins, not coherent ideology. There's no cognitive dissonance, then, involved in public regulation with privatized profits.
Olivia is probably one of the only people of my own age I have ever met who is actually educated when it comes to economics.
Unless that boy I had a conversation with while I was waiting to pay for my Orangina yesterday is secretly the next Nobel Laureate in economics. I guess it's possible.
But unlikely.
Well, at least I'm not alone in being completely oblivious to what any of this means. Me and Mr. Orangina can hang out together in the economy-free zone of America.
Can I come, Mac?
I'd like to pretend that money doesn't exist and doesn't really mean anything (as she gazes at financial aid estimates).
Post a Comment