Countdown: Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, on new House Speaker John 'Bagman' Boehner

Taibbi visited with Keith Olbermann to discuss the 112th Congress' House speaker, widely renowned as perhaps the laziest man in Washington, D. C.
Visit: http://firedoglake.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Countdown
• Rolling
• Stone
• Matt
• Taibbi
• Speaker
• John
• Bagman
• Boehner
• firedoglake

[jjason1985]

@theconservativelib Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best system for channeling human greed for good. While it is not 100%, those cheated by insurance companies can use the court system, which is one of the few legit functions of govt. Is it better to have government do things, and then have no accountability? The government is all powerful and not liable for its actions.

Medical insurance has been totally f*cked up by government intervention. There isnt enough room to go into that tho

[theconservativelib]

@jjason1985 I read it I just think it's great in theory and am still waiting for it to be applied to insurance companies. I didn't see anybody step up in Mississippi when they were screwing people left and right over Katrina claims. Anthem actually gave their employees bonuses for denying people medical coverage and nobody is stepping in to fill that gap their greed is leaving. I want to vote with my dollars but these companies have gotten so big the choice is "screwed" or "screwed more."

[jjason1985]

@theconservativelib When the government makes everything right (at our expense of course), there is no incentive to go to reputable insurers. Did you read about Dow? The German producers banded together to destroy competition and fix prices. If you read what I suggested, your question would have been answered. People vote with their dollars. If you control the market, you tend to give less and charge more, creating great incentive (basically greed) for others to serve the needs of consumers best

[theconservativelib]

@jjason1985 Yeah, I guess I was referring more to anti-trust laws that from what I understand were put in place because of price fixing, the result of unregulated utilities (which do fail). Specifically how the McCarran-Ferguson Act seems to allow insurance companies to band together and destroy any smidgen of competition coming into the market. Public option? No way. Paying Katrina victims back? Only after the courts make them. Would giving these people more freedom get rid of that?

[jjason1985]

@theconservativelib Besides f&f? Well there was basically zero risk after the govt backed the loans. What more could be done to remove risk? It was not insignificant.

Monopolies are very inefficient. The only monopolies that lasted in history were backed by government (laws twisted in their favor or against their competition). Otherwise, those businesses dont last for very long. And if they do, they must be doing things better than any one else. Research Herbert Dow for a great example.

[theconservativelib]

@jjason1985 Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but one other reason I'm not crazy about the free-market is because of monopolies. In my opinion if government had restricted companies to one business (like allowing insurance giants to merge with banks) we wouldn't have created a system where anything is too big to fail. They would have been in check rather than growing out of control and buying all the competition. That's just my opinion though, curious what your take on it is.

[theconservativelib]

@jjason1985 Jason, that is easily the best argument for a free market that I have ever encountered. Kudos. Unfortunately I am still convinced that if left to their own devices Wall st. bankers would eat each other alive and pillage everything not tied down in the name of a quick profit. What was the loss of risk before the TARP program (besides F&F)? Greenspan helping out all his buddys? Did all those firms have that much appetite for risk because of guaranteed bailout or greed?

[jjason1985]

@theconservativelib If the government distorts the market, then bad things happen. If there is no chance of losing money (i.e. loans are backed by fannie and freddy (aka government)) then banks will behave differently than if in a free market. A free market has a ying and yang aspect to it - greed motivates people to work or come up with creative things, fear of loss makes them think twice. When you take away fear, as the government did, stupid risks are taken, as we have seen.

[theconservativelib]

@jjason1985 Yes government played a huge role in pushing poor people into housing they couldn't afford but what about the other stuff? Gov made banks securtize those mortgages to sell off with crappy ratings from moodys and whatnot? That was gov. fault? Gov made AIG take CDS without actually having the money on hand to pay back that insurance? Gov forced pension funds to put money into risky assets just to call themselves "diversified"? These things had nothing to do with greedy banks?

[jjason1985]

@theconservativelib Stop saying free market and then describing government interventions. Just stop. It is dishonest.

The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the subprime housing market is the direct result of thirty years of government policy. The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria was a forceful distortion and therefore NOT A FREE MARKET.