(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

How so?

(01-21-2014 06:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

How so?

Explained above. Pretty much everything that has happened was allowed by the regulations already in place.

(01-21-2014 06:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

How so?

Explained above. Pretty much everything that has happened was allowed by the regulations already in place.

So, would that lead someone to think there's a need for more regulation?

(01-21-2014 06:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

How so?

Explained above. Pretty much everything that has happened was allowed by the regulations already in place.

So, would that lead someone to think there's a need for more regulation?

No. Good regulation. In many cases, fewer but more effective regulations. Many regulations exist more to provide jobs for regulators than to advance the public interest.

To clarify Fo's point, what happened was not just allowed by regulations, but in many case mandated by regulations.

(01-21-2014 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

How so?

Explained above. Pretty much everything that has happened was allowed by the regulations already in place.

So, would that lead someone to think there's a need for more regulation?

No. Good regulation. In many cases, fewer but more effective regulations. Many regulations exist more to provide jobs for regulators than to advance the public interest.

To clarify Fo's point, what happened was not just allowed by regulations, but in many case mandated by regulations.

Referring to CRA?

I can see that;however, I think it was three things that led to the financial crises: Unscrupulous lenders, dumb consumers, and regulators falling asleep at the wheel. Of course, that's just my opinion.

So I guess several on this thread agree with zero. .."at some point you have enough" ?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(01-20-2014 06:19 PM)Artifice Wrote:  It is ridiculous to suggest that there are no ill effects of unfettered capitalism. History is replete with horrific examples of such.

The current tract for this unfettered philosophy in this country is new fuedalism. We are well on the path.

There is nothing wrong with an innovator developing new products tech or services that enrich our lives. There is nothing wrong with that person enjoying financial success. But there is a problem when that success is the end all be all justification for any decision; it is not okay to take advantage of people to achieve it. And when your product (eg financial derivatives, or spec futures contracts trading when you will never take delivery, etc) does no discernible good for society, you are taxing society and providing nothing in return, and your actions are therefore morally reprehensible. Trying to rationalize otherwise is the exact point of ridiculous hubris the author was discussing.

First, please provide a "horrific" example.

Second, nice that you would co-opt Friedrich Hayek famous "The Road to Serfdom." And this country is hardly basking in unfettered capitalism. Regulations and confiscatory taxation sees to that.

Third, every financial product has a practical use. For example, futures contracts are used to hedge against price flucuations. In one famous example, Southwest Airlines was able to hedge against rising jet fuel prices by buying futures contracts. It allowed SW to provide consumers with lower airfares when the other airlines were raising prices due to rising fuel costs. Other derivatives, such as interest rate and credit default swaps, allow companies to manage risk

In the financial crisis, credit default swaps didn't cause the crisis. The overvalued mortgages, which were the underlying value of the tranche products, collapsed in value. When that happened, those who were long the swaps, suffered. The problem was that the mortgages were worth so much less, the default became systemic and thus infected all the counter parties.

Another thing for the leftists posting, how in the hell can you support a president (and vote him in office twice)when he is pumping limitless monies into the market which further enrich the ones you obviously despise and will ultimately hurt the ones who you supposedly care for the most?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(01-21-2014 08:41 AM)maximus Wrote:  Another thing for the leftists posting, how in the hell can you support a president (and vote him in office twice)when he is pumping limitless monies into the market which further enrich the ones you obviously despise and will ultimately hurt the ones who you supposedly care for the most?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

None will respond to this inconvenient truth. He's doing the EXACT thing they elected him not to.

LOL.

(01-20-2014 11:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I love this leftist view that everything good happened because we have a mix of capitalism and socialism, but everything bad happened because we have unfettered capitalism.

We either have unfettered capitalism or a mix between capitalism and socialism, and whichever one we have is responsible for both the good and the bad. You can't have it both ways.

It's an interesting case of selective memory.

When that memory goes ALLLLL the way back to around, perhaps, ten years ago, it really isn't all that selective either. Simply what the bird trainer has taught the parrots.

This is laughable and frightening at the same time. Lord help us.

(01-21-2014 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  How so?

Explained above. Pretty much everything that has happened was allowed by the regulations already in place.

So, would that lead someone to think there's a need for more regulation?

No. Good regulation. In many cases, fewer but more effective regulations. Many regulations exist more to provide jobs for regulators than to advance the public interest.
To clarify Fo's point, what happened was not just allowed by regulations, but in many case mandated by regulations.

Referring to CRA?
I can see that;however, I think it was three things that led to the financial crises: Unscrupulous lenders, dumb consumers, and regulators falling asleep at the wheel. Of course, that's just my opinion.

And who were the unscrupulous lenders and what did they do?

Keep in mind one key point about CRA. What the law said, as written, and what the regulations to enforce it said, and more particularly how those regulations were in fact enforced in the field, were very different. That's a very common, but unfortunately not well understood, consequence of our "fourth branch of government," regulatory agencies.

This is a picture of new 2013 regulations. The small stack on top is new laws passed by Congress. (Courtesy Ted Cruz)

(01-21-2014 02:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 06:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Explained above. Pretty much everything that has happened was allowed by the regulations already in place.

So, would that lead someone to think there's a need for more regulation?

No. Good regulation. In many cases, fewer but more effective regulations. Many regulations exist more to provide jobs for regulators than to advance the public interest.
To clarify Fo's point, what happened was not just allowed by regulations, but in many case mandated by regulations.

Referring to CRA?
I can see that;however, I think it was three things that led to the financial crises: Unscrupulous lenders, dumb consumers, and regulators falling asleep at the wheel. Of course, that's just my opinion.

And who were the unscrupulous lenders and what did they do?

Keep in mind one key point about CRA. What the law said, as written, and what the regulations to enforce it said, and more particularly how those regulations were in fact enforced in the field, were very different. That's a very common, but unfortunately not well understood, consequence of our "fourth branch of government," regulatory agencies.

Many of those lenders were part of the "shadow banking system", etc and not normal banks. They weren't held to CRA standards and still made loads of bad loans.

(01-21-2014 02:20 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  This is a picture of new 2013 regulations. The small stack on top is new laws passed by Congress. (Courtesy Ted Cruz)

lol. And we've been told that "expenses"~ taxes, regulatory expense etc are "quite predictable" year in, year out. haha. They aren't even decipherable.

(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

This is such a ridiculously fallacious argument. The financial collapse was caused by greed (again read the story). You conveniently ignored the rest of my post. When Glass Steagall was revoked, it removed the wall of protections against reckless, manipulative greed.

But your entire attack point ignores the jist of the article. The greed of these wealth addicts is destroying the economy and our middle class. Words that you love to use to discuss poor people, such as entitlement, apply to exponential degrees with these ********. The hubris that they show in demanding the lowest effective tax rates, their attitude of entitlement to massive compensation while contributing absolutely nothing to society, and the utter churlishness of dictating a memo on how to survive on less than subsistence wages while taking massive bonuses is reprehensible.

You started off your next post with' I love this leftist". Right there, you lost the argument and any respect any thinking person would have for you. If this forum is to be anything other than an ideologue circle jerk, then you have to address these discussions with the intent to actually engage - not to just spout dogma. It's mostly wasting my time to even try to get you to engage, but I realize you are one of the few intelligent people here. So I foolishly hold out hope.

(01-21-2014 06:27 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  ...so regulated that it caused the economic collapse that we are all now paying for

Exactly. Most of the problems were caused by regulations.

This is such a ridiculously fallacious argument. The financial collapse was caused by greed (again read the story). You conveniently ignored the rest of my post. When Glass Steagall was revoked, it removed the wall of protections against reckless, manipulative greed.

But your entire attack point ignores the jist of the article. The greed of these wealth addicts is destroying the economy and our middle class. Words that you love to use to discuss poor people, such as entitlement, apply to exponential degrees with these ********. The hubris that they show in demanding the lowest effective tax rates, their attitude of entitlement to massive compensation while contributing absolutely nothing to society, and the utter churlishness of dictating a memo on how to survive on less than subsistence wages while taking massive bonuses is reprehensible.

You started off your next post with' I love this leftist". Right there, you lost the argument and any respect any thinking person would have for you. If this forum is to be anything other than an ideologue circle jerk, then you have to address these discussions with the intent to actually engage - not to just spout dogma. It's mostly wasting my time to even try to get you to engage, but I realize you are one of the few intelligent people here. So I foolishly hold out hope.

You should wear your leftist badge with honor. Why run from it?

I asked a rather simple question, care to give it a stab?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I'm reminded of Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, who was awarded a $210 Million retirement package for his "performance" by a crony compensation committee - when Home Depot's stock tanked while competitor Lowe's stock was up over 170% over the same period. Naked, undeserved greed.

Interesting - someone just recommended this book. I think I will give it a shot.

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Capitali...1422144208

(01-21-2014 08:41 AM)maximus Wrote:  Another thing for the leftists posting, how in the hell can you support a president (and vote him in office twice)when he is pumping limitless monies into the market which further enrich the ones you obviously despise and will ultimately hurt the ones who you supposedly care for the most?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Bump

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(01-21-2014 08:47 PM)Artifice Wrote:  I'm reminded of Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, who was awarded a $210 Million retirement package for his "performance" by a crony compensation committee - when Home Depot's stock tanked while competitor Lowe's stock was up over 170% over the same period. Naked, undeserved greed.

Interesting - someone just recommended this book. I think I will give it a shot.

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Capitali...1422144208

Why do leftists like yourself give two ***** what a private company does with their money? What are you proposing? Confiscation?

How about the trillions wasted over the past few years in "stimulus". You know taxpayer dollars. You know....increasing liquidity to the point that the damn will eventually break and further drown out the middle class.

If only leftists would stop worrying or trying to figure out how to rob private industry and start worrying about the waste and fraud they ignore in the public....that'll be the ******* day.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(01-21-2014 09:39 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 08:47 PM)Artifice Wrote:  I'm reminded of Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, who was awarded a $210 Million retirement package for his "performance" by a crony compensation committee - when Home Depot's stock tanked while competitor Lowe's stock was up over 170% over the same period. Naked, undeserved greed.

Interesting - someone just recommended this book. I think I will give it a shot.

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Capitali...1422144208

Why do leftists like yourself give two ***** what a private company does with their money? What are you proposing? Confiscation?

How about the trillions wasted over the past few years in "stimulus". You know taxpayer dollars. You know....increasing liquidity to the point that the damn will eventually break and further drown out the middle class.

If only leftists would stop worrying or trying to figure out how to rob private industry and start worrying about the waste and fraud they ignore in the public....that'll be the ******* day.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I'm thinking of something more along the lines of an Oceans 11 heist.

But in all honesty, who gives f@ck either way? People are allowed to complain the practices of private businesses as much as they want.