The cynics, however, fail to realize that times have changed, and one can no longer allow the market to run without strict regulatory guidelines in place. In theory, some would argue, though I would not, the unregulated market is what’s best for a capitalistic society. President Obama, then, is informing the cynics that the markets will remain in place but not without regulation. Thus, his account is better than the old account because market trends will still determine cost, but the added regulation will ensure that it is difficult, if not impossible, to game the system. This is but one example of the ground’s shifting, the changing of the guard, and ultimately the paradigm shift we so desperately need.
The ideology of conservative and trickle-down economics is equally fallible, since it assumes the nature of capital is to flow from positions of power. Economically speaking, those who have the money, have the power. With this power they can employ, rebuild and so on — in theory. In practice, however, economists and statisticians must factor greed into their equations. Though he may be no economist, President Obama has factored the greed of many men and women into his ground shifting stance. Without regulation we will assuredly fall deeper into this recession.
The cynics are anti hope, because they must protect their own interests. They are anti regulation because regulation constrains their exorbitant profit margins. They are, in effect, the old way, the old model. The new way, the new model, must be built on the foundation of accountability and market regulation. Ethics, which have for so long been absent in political discourse, must be reintroduced in the form of effective regulation. The cynics have had their day; their time has come and gone. Now it is a new day, and the economic responsibility for securing market conditions must shift to this new paradigm, namely, a paradigm of ethical accountability.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
"The cynics are always skeptical of change."
So are you saying that all change is good and no one can be just when approaching change with any degree of cynicism or caution?
Also you call for market accountability but not personal responsibility among citizens. Don't you think our nation would benefit most by having both?
2 - Roger Nowosielski
Great article, Jason,
I like your description in terms of paradigm change. Of course, it's been ongoing in many people's minds for quite some time; but it's a very positive thing to have it articulated from the top. The message is more likely to get through and people will get clearer.
I also agree that a form of "free market" economy is still the best bet for liberal democracies. I have a piece about to be published here, "The Hidden Dimensions of American Politics, Part III," with extensive quote from the introduction of Forster's Howards End. He was very much exercised by those questions. In any case, there is a gap between the notion of freedom and that of justice, which will never be bridged unless the markets are regulated in a sensible way and ethics re-introduced to political discourse. So perhaps you can look at my piece once it comes out and give me some feedback.
Nice job.
Roger
3 - Brunelleschi
Jason-
Nice work!
Philosophy pre-dated Christianity by at least 300 years, and continues to evolve, but in a tiny community. We have just been ignoring it. Religions have hijacked it for their own agenda (coercing followers to believe and obey, etc).
Our own constitution was written by people influenced by philosophy in their search for a paradigm shift. Since then, parties formed and thinking about philosophy was displaced by power games and people trying to justify their actions on self-interest.
This is far from early philosophy's ideal of "Philosopher Kings" that use their knowledge for good. Kings are obsolete, but philosophy isn't. Too bad we have been ignoring it.
Write some more. Good stuff.
4 - Roger Nowosielski
Well put, Brunelleschi. For all their faults and attachment to old ideas, there WERE thinking men.
5 - Dan(Miller)
According to the author,
Inspirational, perhaps, but while some cynics, doubters and skeptics are as described, some are not. It is entirely possible to be cynical without merely seeking to protect one's own dubious interests or exorbitant profit margins. It is also possible to be four square in favor of change and hope without offering adequate substance to create good change or viable hope.There have been far too many poorly written laws and regulations and, without skepticism, all of the hope in the world won't help much.
The efficacy of regulation depends, to a very great extent, on the regulators and the statutes under which they operate. I have experienced many career regulators in "expert agencies" who were quite capable of functioning and rising in their bureaucratic environments but nevertheless had very little understanding of the industries they were charged with regulating. Such understanding is needed, and unless more of a true pig's breakfast than already exists is to be created, the understanding has to be more than academic or ideological. Unfortunately often, political hacks are appointed to guide regulatory agencies and, despite their political savvy, have even less understanding of the industries they are charge with regulating than do the career employees under them.
Many in the legislative branches have even less understanding of commercial realities than do the regulators, and quite often the laws which they pass reflect this lack of understanding. It it far more difficult to enact laws which work well and benefit the public than it is to enact laws which -- despite the best and most idealistic of intentions -- don't. Once the laws have been passed, it is far more difficult for the regulatory agencies to adopt salutary regulations under those laws (particularly ill thought out laws) than it is to adopt regulations which neither work well nor benefit the public. I am concerned that the notion "Ready; Fire; Aim" may be more prevalent in Hope and Change than is likely to be beneficial.
Healthy doses of cynicism, skepticism and doubt are not only good; they will be necessary if the offered changes are to be for the better.
Dan(Miller)
6 - Roger Nowosielski
Looks like we've grown too big for our breeches, then. For if such indeed are the difficulties facing us, we'll always be in a mess.
7 - Dan(Miller)
Roger,
Possibly so. The world is complicated and for the United States (with a population exceeding 300,000,000) to revert to a simpler existence in an increasingly global environment seems highly unlikely. My point was not that there is no hope, but rather that unless the situation is now so horrible that any change would be an improvement, which I seriously doubt, some skepticism is a good thing. At the very least, recognition is needed that some changes would be bad and that some changes would be better than others. Total faith in our leaders is totally misplaced, even though limited faith may not be.
There will still be a mess, but perhaps a less odious mess; that, I think, is an optimistic conclusion.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Roger Nowosielski
I agree with you, Dan. It's just scary that there are no clear viable solutions one could latch onto. Unless of course there will be a major breakdown, which will necessitate a fresh start. Or the world government, which would be only worse. Perhaps that's how things happen in history, not by design or the human hand but in the course of unfolding events.
Roger
9 - (Mark) Eden
We are all unintended consequences.
10 - Andy Marsh
Come one now...only one of my kids was unintended!
11 - Roger Nowosielski
Come on, Mark. That's not Marx's view of history.
12 - (Mark) Eden
So, he got the whole direction of history thing wrong...what can we say? Perhaps we should subscribe to the Leibowitz theory of social development.
Andy, I'm looking for a youtube rimshot for you. But let's examine the logic of our condition...as you were clearly a mistake (and, being a real bastard myself, I mean that in the best possible way), what does that make your kids?
xxoo
13 - Roger Nowosielski
What I meant, you omitted consciousness from the equation. Didn't you?
14 - (Mark) Eden
You're right...I should have said 'directionality thing'.
15 - Andy Marsh
Look, just because my birth certificate dates 6 months after my parents wedding certificate doesn't mean I was a mistake! But...but...you don't know me!! hehe
16 - Cindy D
I have experienced many career regulators in "expert agencies" who were quite capable of functioning and rising in their bureaucratic environments but nevertheless had very little understanding of the industries they were charged with regulating.
May be why the law might be written by the very people it might benefit. If a legislator has no real deep understanding of what the industry does or how it works, relying on the industry itself has proved an effective way of writing law.
17 - (Mark) Eden
(Actually, Roger, I was just trying on your Perhaps that's how things happen in history, not by design or the human hand but in the course of unfolding events. I kinda like it, as it resonates with my experience.
But that view doesn't neglect consciousness; it just acknowledges that consciousness is pretty poor at controlling long term outcomes.)
18 - Roger Nowosielski
To tell the truth, Mark, I think that's what's going to happen. If the system breaks, we'll be faced with circumstances and conditions we can't even imagine. And then things will sort themselves out, somehow. The forces of history will provide a corrective, whether we like it or not. I'm not sure if you read anything by Karl Popper, on historicism and the view he was opposing. I'll have to delve into it a bit to refresh myself. Also "Ideology and Utopia" by Mannheim; and Lukacs perhaps.
Roger
19 - (Mark) Eden
Roger, I agree with you -- except to emphasize that 'things' and 'forces of history' won't do a damned thing. People will.
We can compare notes on Popper if you'd like. IMO he too fails to demystify that directionality thing in historical movement despite all of his claims.
Mark
20 - Roger Nowosielski
I realize that, but what I mean by "forces" is simply that we don't know what form people's action will take, in what direction, and in response to what conditions. It's a shorthand!
21 - (Mark) Eden
That's why I was just adding emphasis.
22 - Roger Nowosielski
OK!
23 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy D,
relying on the industry itself has proved an effective way of writing law. Sometimes and sometimes not. Industry (and, of course, other interest groups) pays lobbyists lots of money to get the legislative results it wants -- or thinks it wants. I haven't witnessed a lot of Congressional hearings on legislation, but those I have witnessed seemed to have been devoted more to the legislators making speeches in hopes of memorable sound bites being discovered by the media than to asking probing questions to attempt to determine whether what industry (and, of course, other interest groups) wants -- or thinks it wants -- would be a good thing.
Change in this area can certainly be hoped for, but even now hardly seem inevitable.
Dan(Miller)
24 - bliffle
Dan(Miller) says:
The efficacy of regulation depends, to a very great extent, on the regulators and the statutes under which they operate. I have experienced many career regulators in "expert agencies" who were quite capable of functioning and rising in their bureaucratic environments but nevertheless had very little understanding of the industries they were charged with regulating. Such understanding is needed, and unless more of a true pig's breakfast than already exists is to be created, the understanding has to be more than academic or ideological. Unfortunately often, political hacks are appointed to guide regulatory agencies and, despite their political savvy, have even less understanding of the industries they are charge with regulating than do the career employees under them.
Many in the legislative branches have even less understanding of commercial realities than do the regulators, and quite often the laws which they pass reflect this lack of understanding. It it far more difficult to enact laws which work well and benefit the public than it is to enact laws which -- despite the best and most idealistic of intentions -- don't.
All true.
At the same time, one can state exactly the same for many of the Executives who lead our major companies. They do not understand even their own company or it's products, let alone the industry. What they understand is How To Get Ahead. They know how to get the job, but they don't know how to do it.
I have seen this so many times in the Executive Suites that I am purely astounded.
The evolutionary schema that we have allowed to develop in the business world is very degenerate. It is so bad that one may conclude that 'allowed' is not the right word, that 'encouraged' is more appropriate.
This problem is compounded by the FACT that the unholy alliance of government and business that has been encouraged the past couple decades has helped to insulate bad managers from the consequences of their malevolent actions. They designed it that way in their Board Rooms (which they occupied like it was enemy territory) and in the efforts of the congressmen that they hired as Influence Peddlers (politely called 'lobbyists').
We are just coming out of 8 years of uninhibited business wildness. The result is not good.
I think the solution is to change modern corporations to be responsive to a wider range of stakeholders. Corporate privilege has to be redefined, corporate Boards have to be re-constituted, corporate goals narrowed, etc.
25 - Cindy D
Dan(Miller),
I'm trying to find out some things about the federal resreve. It's a tough thing for me. There's a lot of conspiracy stuff interwound in it--like people thinking it's privately owned and what not. But, that thought was mostly about what I've been seeing about its initial regulation and operation. I don't know if it's true yet. I'm not sure of who is believable yet. But, supposedly, 6(?) banking men went into a hotel for a week or so with a legislator and came out with the basis for how it would work.