And the democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent corrections for that decade because those policies, in the short term, appeared to help their constituents. They wanted to get lots of new homeowners homes, but those homeowners often found they couldn't afford the mortgages in the long run, which is exactly why the banks hadn't been making those loans prior to government meddling. Those mortgage problems were, naturally, exacerbated by the fact that lots of additional demand drove up home prices.
For the exact same story, see the ongoing student loan debacle.
That’s not the story I heard from the finance people who were setting up the securitization.
I agree with your broader point: government policy is complex, we need a regulated market system because completely free markets don’t work, so we need a high skilled government that tries hard to get things right — and a legislative system that cares about the government functioning well.
Exactly. Unfortunately Americans have been trained to believe that one party is right and the other is wrong. The concept that maybe both are wrong or support the same thing is foreign to them.
Same with surveillance: It's either Bush's fault or Obama's fault. They don't see the steady progression over the years independently of who is in power.
It’s sort of the divide and conquer strategy. Pit groups against each other whilst the looting occurs. While people fight over who is the true snowflake and that kind of stuff all sorts of shitty policies get enacted. Things didn’t just suddenly get unbearable because <person of opposite party> just got elected. If one thinks this then the problem was already there and one's lack of awareness of it is the real problem.
It's also convenient for maintaining a grip on power and something I'm certain both parties have internally considered. Think about the most recent election. How many people voted for Hillary thinking, "I think this person truly and accurately represents my views and beliefs." And similarly for Trump? By contrast how many voted for one or the other thinking, "This person is trash... but, my god, the alternative is just completely unacceptable!"
The same sort of attitude ensures that third parties will never be considered. When people are driven to literally fear the 'opposition' winning, it means that the powers that be have effectively sealed their grip on power tight. Also even notice the media's focus on "electability." It's all rhetoric designed to get people to note vote for the candidate they want in power, but to 'strategically vote' and in the process completely undermine their own self interest.
Pair this with some institutional issues like ballot access and we have a system where the establishment has all but guaranteed their perpetual success.
This Chomsky vote comes to mind: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” .
Since we're discussing nothing short of the US government acting as an enemy to the citizens it is supposed to serve, I would suppose the next few prudent questions are:
1) What is the entity deploying this divide and conquer strategy?
2) Is this entity monolithic? Cellular? Organized or random?
3) What does this entity stand to gain and is it good for all?
Since we're discussing nothing short of the US government acting as an enemy to the citizens it is supposed to serve....
Your premise is incorrect. The "sort of" part of my statement is important. There are lots of forces at play that cause this. I see it as sort of an emergent phenomenon and not the design of some clever genius or powerful organization.