Today on C-SPAN I've watched several panels of bankers discussing the world economy and many factors causing it to be as it is. Their analysis of how things came to be seems good. And though they generally said American banks have never ever been in better shape, not one gave Pres. Obama or the Federal Reserve credit for getting us out of and past the recent crisis and getting the economy growing. None complained the economy was growing too slowly, but none mentioned the negative effect of the Republicans in Congress. The one comment about how easy it would be to get things done in Washington, D.C. sounded like something a banker might have said in 1981 -- ludicrous for today.
The world is constantly changing and they've been focused on their businesses, so it is easy to dismiss their myopia.
I heard several suggestions of where the problems lay and in most cases these were things which have existed forever and they are things being improved as they spoke. I didn't hear many important suggestions which would improve the overall economy, just self-serving lobbying/begging for favors.
One comment struck me as very interesting because it echoes something I've thought a long time. When you have a well-designed system and you are looking for ways to improve it you can begin by looking for the things causing friction. Improve those points and things will work better.
I didn't hear any of them speaking about friction points in the overall economy. Sure sure, there was mention of burdensome regulation, but little else.
I heard people are being paid more, but none were ready to acknowledge that this is essential to making the economy work faster (or better).
I heard them saying infrastructure spending in many parts of the world could be very good (a business they fund) if it were done well, but I didn't hear them saying how that infrastructure would make the wider economy work better or what specific kinds of infrastructure spending they would favor for America.
I heard them saying greater educational opportunity was important, but not how it would be funded. Somehow I doubt they would favor higher taxes.
As with most things coming from Wall St. in the last few decades (and perhaps longer than that) it seemed to be all about bigger profits for them.
It was understandable that I didn't hear explanations of why other kinds of businesses weren't borrowing money. The banks have a lot and would apparently rather buy back stock than lend the money, but why don't other business leaders borrow? Apparently there are trillions of dollars sitting idle around the globe and people simply don't want to risk making a mistake on a bad investment. Everyone wants a rigged game, a sure bet. I don't know what the dangers of making a mistake might be. They didn't expand on that.
Asked why they and other businesses don't want to actually risk anything and the answers were all about attitude and fear. The common folk are doing better and are more confident, but apparently the rich are scared to death and can't do their work properly for shaky hands.
This is the same kind of attitude they had in 2007-09. You would think strong leaders would be past that and onto conquering new horizons. But no.
I'd love to hear from some business leaders (aside from bankers) and a couple of union leaders and a couple of politicians involved in funding things. It would be fun to see them all point fingers at one another. Where is the leadership they might argue? Well, I'll tell you. Pres. Obama has offered leadership and they have ignored him. The leadership from the boardrooms of the terrified and drooling hasn't been nearly as good.
We are apparently no longer in "the home of the brave".
If only I had heard there is a friction point here or there. Those sorts of things can be improved. But, men's psychies are a little harder to fix. Maybe they need the fear of corporate raiders to inspire them to act. If all these bankers want to buy stock, then why wouldn't corporate raiders want to buy companies. If all these companies are worth so much then why not just buy up lots of companies and replace their leadership with people who can get things done? It worked pretty well at the car companies during the recession.
The world is constantly changing and they've been focused on their businesses, so it is easy to dismiss their myopia.
I heard several suggestions of where the problems lay and in most cases these were things which have existed forever and they are things being improved as they spoke. I didn't hear many important suggestions which would improve the overall economy, just self-serving lobbying/begging for favors.
One comment struck me as very interesting because it echoes something I've thought a long time. When you have a well-designed system and you are looking for ways to improve it you can begin by looking for the things causing friction. Improve those points and things will work better.
I didn't hear any of them speaking about friction points in the overall economy. Sure sure, there was mention of burdensome regulation, but little else.
I heard people are being paid more, but none were ready to acknowledge that this is essential to making the economy work faster (or better).
I heard them saying infrastructure spending in many parts of the world could be very good (a business they fund) if it were done well, but I didn't hear them saying how that infrastructure would make the wider economy work better or what specific kinds of infrastructure spending they would favor for America.
I heard them saying greater educational opportunity was important, but not how it would be funded. Somehow I doubt they would favor higher taxes.
As with most things coming from Wall St. in the last few decades (and perhaps longer than that) it seemed to be all about bigger profits for them.
It was understandable that I didn't hear explanations of why other kinds of businesses weren't borrowing money. The banks have a lot and would apparently rather buy back stock than lend the money, but why don't other business leaders borrow? Apparently there are trillions of dollars sitting idle around the globe and people simply don't want to risk making a mistake on a bad investment. Everyone wants a rigged game, a sure bet. I don't know what the dangers of making a mistake might be. They didn't expand on that.
Asked why they and other businesses don't want to actually risk anything and the answers were all about attitude and fear. The common folk are doing better and are more confident, but apparently the rich are scared to death and can't do their work properly for shaky hands.
This is the same kind of attitude they had in 2007-09. You would think strong leaders would be past that and onto conquering new horizons. But no.
I'd love to hear from some business leaders (aside from bankers) and a couple of union leaders and a couple of politicians involved in funding things. It would be fun to see them all point fingers at one another. Where is the leadership they might argue? Well, I'll tell you. Pres. Obama has offered leadership and they have ignored him. The leadership from the boardrooms of the terrified and drooling hasn't been nearly as good.
We are apparently no longer in "the home of the brave".
If only I had heard there is a friction point here or there. Those sorts of things can be improved. But, men's psychies are a little harder to fix. Maybe they need the fear of corporate raiders to inspire them to act. If all these bankers want to buy stock, then why wouldn't corporate raiders want to buy companies. If all these companies are worth so much then why not just buy up lots of companies and replace their leadership with people who can get things done? It worked pretty well at the car companies during the recession.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.