One of the planks in the Democratic platform is entitled "Fight for Economic Fairness and Against Inequality." That is an interesting name for a plank and it reveals a lot about how much the Democrats do not understand about economics. Let's consider that for a while today.
Complete and total economic fairness is found only in the free market. In the free market everyone can determine precisely how much he wants to participate. In the free market everyone is paid in exact proportion to how much he serves the desires of the consumers. In the free market each person is able to bring products and services to the market that he believes will be desired by consumers. If he is correct he will be rewarded with profits. If he is wrong he will be punished with losses. Those people, generally the great majority, who are unwilling to take on entrepreneurial risk are free, in the free market, to offer their labor services, both skilled and unskilled, to the entrepreneurs who are assuming market risk. Everyone is free to do exactly as he pleases. In addition, everyone is free to choose not to participate as well. Each person will be paid precisely for what he does.
There are no free markets anywhere in the world today. Each country, to one degree or another, practices an interventionist economic policy in which career politicians and bureaucrats determine in advance who will have economic advantages over whom. Anytime a special "right" is assigned to one group, at least one other group has a right taken away. Every time a special group gets income for something other than serving the desires of the consumers, some other group has been forced to pay the taxes that are given to the privileged group. Every time the government creates a law for a profession requiring those who participate in it to get prior government approval, known as a license, all of those who are qualified to work in that profession but who are unwilling or unable to get the license are discriminated against. There are no natural monopolies in the free market. On the other hand, the government creates hundreds of monopolies in which the protected group obtains taxpayer financed cash and prizes that the non-protected group is forbidden to earn, at taxpayer expense of course. All of this is to say that when the Democrats claim to be intervening into the economy to bring about "equality" they are actually doing just the opposite. They are intervening in the economy to pay off those who support them, in the hypocritical name of equality.
The biggest target and most favored whipping post for the Democrats is alternatively called "Wall Street" or "Big Banking." The third plank has this to say about their arch nemesis, "To restore economic fairness, Democrats will fight against the greed and recklessness of Wall Street. Wall Street cannot be an island unto itself, gambling trillions in risky financial instruments and making huge profits, all the while thinking that taxpayers will be there to bail them out again. We must tackle dangerous risks in big banks and elsewhere in the financial system. We must make Wall Street work for the job-creating, productive economy—including by making loans more affordable for small- and medium-sized businesses. We need to prohibit Wall Street from picking and choosing which credit agency will rate its products as well as from imposing excessive fees on consumers." There is so much wrong with that series of statements I hardly know where to begin exposing the errors. Still, I will try.
Why is it that only people who work for banks are greedy? What does it mean to be greedy? If greedy is defined as always seeking to get the best return or the lowest price, how can it be that every single person in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is not guilty of it? And if everyone is guilty of it, why single out Wall Street investment banking firms? I don't know of a single citizen in this envy filled country who goes around seeking to pay more for something than he has to. I also can't think of a single person I have met in my life who voluntarily switched his investment portfolio into something that gave him a lower rate of return. It seems rather clear to me that every time the Democrats use the word 'greedy' they are doing so for no other reason than to disparage banks and bankers. Everyone is greedy and being greedy, as they define it, is not a sin.
This entire paragraph reeks of economic ignorance. It presupposes that the Great Recession was caused by profit seeking investment banks. That is completely incorrect. For some accurate information about the causes and repercussions of the Great Recession, go here, here, here, here and here. To make a long story short, it was a combination of several factors, all of them created by the federal government, that brought about the financial collapse that then precipitated the Great Recession. Free market banking did not create it. The "reckless" derivatives described by the Democrats were nothing more than the free market's attempt to reduce the risks already introduced into the financial markets by government policies and mandates in the real estate market. Then, when the entire thing collapsed, the government blamed the banks and waltzed away Scot-free. It was the federal government that was greedy. It was the federal government that was gambling with trillions of dollars and, lest we forget, it was the government that made the voluntary decision to bail out some of the banks (and one car company) when the recession started.
The assertion that "we" (never defined....just who is this group called "we" that keeps popping up everywhere?) "must make Wall Street work for the job-creating, productive economy..." betrays a ghastly ignorance of how capital is created in the free market. The clear intimation is that the creation of financial assets is not related to what the Democrats call the "productive economy." The productive economy, if what they wrote earlier in their platform is any indication, consists of menial manufacturing jobs that they expect to spontaneously spring up around the land when they are in power. Capital does not grow on trees and every productive business in the universe is capital dependent. Wall Street investment bankers are experts at raising capital for business enterprises. To harm Wall Street is to harm Main Street, although the Democrats will never admit to that truth.
The allegation that Wall Street investment bankers "pick and choose which credit rating agency will rate its products" is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. The credit rating agencies are all quasi-government institutions. There are no free market credit rating agencies. When those agencies rated the derivatives created by Wall Street investment bankers, just prior to the Great Recession, as high quality investments they were doing so on the authority of the federal government. People in the free market who attempted to argue otherwise were drowned out with laughter and derision. All of the blame for the miss-rating of those mortgage backed securities falls squarely on the shoulders of government regulators, not Wall Street bankers.
The Democrats describe their economic goal as follows, "Our goal must be to create a financial system and an economy that works for all Americans, not just a handful of billionaires. We support a financial transactions tax on Wall Street to curb excessive speculation and high-frequency trading, which has threatened financial markets." Once again, everything in that statement is wrong, wrong and more wrong.
There is no such thing as a "financial system." All career politicians and the lackeys who vote for them continue to persist in their infantile and irrational belief that there is something out there called a financial system and that an all knowing and all powerful government bureau can regulate and control it as they wish. The stated goal of the Democrats is to "create a financial system." That goal is impossible. That goal is a communist/socialist utopian dream. All people who even think that such a goal is attainable should be checked into an insane asylum and subjected to a long series of shock treatments, at least until their brains are sufficiently scrambled they give up that ridiculous concept.
Now hear this you Democrats....everything that exists in the world has been created by profit seeking entrepreneurs. Without profit seeking corporations and businesses nothing would exist above the mere subsistence level. Government has created nothing and can only do harm by intervening into the free market where everything is created. Attempting to regulate the free market in order to obtain some self-conceived goal of equality is absurd and impossible. Every single time government taxes a portion of the free market it creates the very inequality it claims to be removing. Every single time the government intervenes into the economy it creates winners and losers. Furthermore, all interventions into the free market inevitably create additional inequalities that come with various special interest groups as one receives government favors and others are taxed to pay for those favors. The money that Democrats want to steal from billionaires does not belong to the Democrats and they have no right to it. Any attempt to take it away from its rightful owners is the act of theft. God will judge those who steal from others. The Democrats are massive hypocrites as they pretend to praise economic equality when their interventionist activities in the market do precisely the opposite.
One downright shocking splinter in this plank is defined as follows, "At a time when many of the largest banks have shunned communities across America, Democrats believe that we need to give Americans affordable banking options, including by empowering the United States Postal Service to facilitate the delivery of basic banking services." Now that sounds like a brilliant idea! I can't conceive of how anything could possibly go wrong with the Post Office becoming a bank. Just imagine it for a moment....a bank with all of the charm of the Post Office. Tellers will be surly and see customers as a hindrance to their happiness. Hours will be restricted. Service will be shoddy. Money will be routinely lost or misdirected. Complaints will go unanswered. Rates of return will be below market and the entire enterprise will be subsidized by the taxpayers as far into the future as we can see. What a great idea.