Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1 What do you mean "Free Market"? 
    In a comments page of a recent article, a poster pointed out that financial markets without regulation are like football games without referees. Take away the refs, and the game isn't much of a game anymore--it's a free-for-all.

    He observed that part of the reason people do NOT invest in shady 3rd-world financial markets is precisely because there is a lack of regulation. If you look at the notion of laws and police, they are there explicitly to protect the people from getting a raw deal. They protect the sanctity of the contract.

    If someone really and truly thinks they are a "Reagan republican" who wants to do away with all regulation in private industry, why should there be any laws at all? Why shouldn't the market simply adjust for people who don't do the research on the disposition of their retirement fund and end up losing it all to shady (but legal) financial practices of the companies entrusted to protect it? Why don't we do away with the notion of "police" altogether? They are just another form of regulation: regulating the enforcement of laws--at the public expense no less! Just another social program that we could do without, right?

    Hell, the SEC is just an arm of the communist party, and passing the plate on Sunday is for hippies and pinko socialist pinheads! To hell with all laws and all regulations. Those are for elitist Europeans and their red tape factories. Only the strong survive here in America. If the old widow across town can't feed herself anymore, well, we can eat her for dinner--when she dies, of course. I'm not advocating murder. She either feeds herself, or she dies. That's the way it should be. We shouldn't be burdened with the responsibility of carrying around dead weight. A true expression of the free market entails stripping the entire society of any protections whatsoever. You own your problems and your successes: as in OWNERSHIP SOCIETY.

    How much protection does the individual deserve?

    It's unmistakably clear that if you are an individual who is losing his house while trying to feed your kids and is in real danger of being laid off, you are just going to have to sell your limousine and your summer home in Martha's Vinyard--which is to say, you are just fucked because you don't have either one.

    However, if you happen to be a massive financial firm whose employees and associates have robbed the assets of individual investors and retirement plans for the last several years, the government will step in like a big, rich uncle, and bail your criminal asses out--AND THEN PASS THE BURDEN ON TO THE TAXPAYERS. So basically, you and I and our kids end up paying for the obscene bonuses, golden parachutes and unregulated profiteering of the financial giants.

    Don't get me wrong, if you sign the paperwork saying you are going to pay a mortgage, you should be expected to pay for it. At the same time, the industry rules that went very lax near the beginning of the new millennium were designed to allow loans to be given to those who couldn't previously have gotten one before. And why not? Because of the well-established facts regarding income-to-mortgage payments previously denied these people loans as they were too high-risk.

    High-risk. As in, too risky to lend money to. But that is the nature of banking: the more risky the bank's lending practices, the more money they are apt to make--and the more susceptible they are to fluctuations in the economy that can have a domino-effect. This is not unlike the banking practices put into place shortly after the implementation of the Federal Reserve Act. We all know how that turned out.

    Naturally, then the banking industry will always push for more risky lending practices, and naturally, individuals would rather own their house than rent--regardless of the wisdom of this, it is reflex: human nature. It should be regulated. Whenever it is not, it leads to a few people getting extremely wealthy and a shitload of money being lost somewhere through the chain of custody of the debt. As usual, it comes back on the shoulders of the American taxpayer to carry the burden of bailing out financial firms for HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

    And your worried about paying more taxes under Obama? Where do you think this money is going to come from to pay for the wars and the bailouts? You think there is a "secret piggy bank" under the Pentagon where they keep all the money? No. The bailout, like the war funding bills, is just "official permission" to print more money. Each dollar that's printed is a loan that is immediately collecting interest--and causing the dollars in our pockets to decline in value.

    You thought inflation was bad? Well, it's going to get worse. Our buying power will diminish even more in the next 6 months thanks to these bailouts.

    Hey, I've got one: what do you call a bailout under a republican? Financial relief.
    What do you call a bailout under a democrat? Communism. (or socialism if you like)

    So, the question is: how much of a "free market" should be unregulated?

    Oh, and think about the shitstorm we would be hunkering down for if Social Security had been privatized into the stock market.



    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
    Oh, and think about the shitstorm we would be hunkering down for if Social Security had been privatized into the stock market.
    "It means your own money would grow better than that which the government can make it grow. And that's important." --George W. Bush, on what private accounts could do for Social Security funds, Falls Church, Va., April 29, 2005
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    "It means your own money would grow better than that which the government can make it grow. And that's important." --George W. Bush, on what private accounts could do for Social Security funds, Falls Church, Va., April 29, 2005
    "Until the financial markets spiral down in unregulated flames...in which case, you'll not only grow it worse than it would under government protection, it will probably disappear into Ahmed Chalabi's Swiss bank account and we'll make you pay for it again. But that probably won't happen until we're all just a bad memory." --GWB, under his breath
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member wineslob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    138
    Adress SS and welfare.
    There's no way you can trust her. Her missile is gigantic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by wineslob View Post
    Adress SS and welfare.
    What's the matter? You don't want to talk about the post? If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread.

    And the last line IS about SS.


    .
    Last edited by jay howard; 09-18-2008 at 12:53 PM. Reason: word
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15
    With the exception of a few anarchists here and there nobody really wants or advocates no regulation whatsoever. The question is, where is the line?

    My personal opinion is that anything you are going to bail out if it fails needs to be regulated. People and companies making the absurd loans and other financial decisions that were responsible for much of the current financial issues will just turn around and do it again because the profit outweighed the cost (to them). They got to make billions and when the gig was up, you and I paid the piper. We have to let them fail if we expect anybody to learn a lesson. However, if the cost of failure is too high to be born, then you have to regulate to keep them from doing it again, since you aren’t going to allow the natural consequences of bad decisions occur.

    And your worried about paying more taxes under Obama? Where do you think this money is going to come from to pay for the wars and the bailouts? You think there is a "secret piggy bank" under the Pentagon where they keep all the money? No. The bailout, like the war funding bills, is just "official permission" to print more money. Each dollar that's printed is a loan that is immediately collecting interest--and causing the dollars in our pockets to decline in value.
    Obama’s tax increases aren’t about raising more revenue. Even he knows that isn’t the way it works. They are about income redistribution. This is why he says he might put off raising taxes on the rich if the economy is bad. He know that raising the rates for those people is bad for the economy. When the economy shrinks, tax revenue goes down.

    Oh, and think about the shitstorm we would be hunkering down for if Social Security had been privatized into the stock market.
    If a portion of SS had been privatized into the market, I would be thinking about all the great deals I would be getting on my weekly index fund purchases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by justsayin View Post
    With the exception of a few anarchists here and there nobody really wants or advocates no regulation whatsoever. The question is, where is the line?

    My personal opinion is that anything you are going to bail out if it fails needs to be regulated.
    What does that mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by justsayin View Post
    People and companies making the absurd loans and other financial decisions that were responsible for much of the current financial issues will just turn around and do it again because the profit outweighed the cost (to them). They got to make billions and when the gig was up, you and I paid the piper. We have to let them fail if we expect anybody to learn a lesson.
    O.k. We're saying the same thing so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by justsayin View Post
    However, if the cost of failure is too high to be born, then you have to regulate to keep them from doing it again, since you aren’t going to allow the natural consequences of bad decisions occur.
    So, then there are no bad consequences for those who either profited from this debacle or those who loosened the rules to allow it to take place at all. What a load of crap.

    What has taken place is criminal. Meanwhile, you and I and our children will end up forking over $2 TRILLION dollars (conservatively) for the bailouts and the Iraq war while a tiny group of people get extremely wealthier at our expense.

    Just try to imagine what the response would be if Bill Clinton had overseen the decisions of the last 8 years. He would be successfully impeached--maybe crucified.

    The lesson here is this: if you are a murderer and a thief, you will be punished to the full extent of the law--unless you are a mass murderer or a mass pilferer, in which case, you get to keep all the money and get invited to the parties--because you are richer than Creases.


    Quote Originally Posted by justsayin View Post
    Obama’s tax increases aren’t about raising more revenue. Even he knows that isn’t the way it works. They are about income redistribution.
    What do you think the bailout is? It's income redistribution. Instead of going from the superwealthy to the average, it's going from the average to the superwealthier. Why is this such a leap of logic? Why is it only "income redistribution" if it goes from rich-to-poor? I suppose you think this bailout is just a natural consequence of free-market capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by justsayin View Post
    This is why he says he might put off raising taxes on the rich if the economy is bad. He know that raising the rates for those people is bad for the economy.

    When the economy shrinks, tax revenue goes down.
    Are you high? You know what else is bad for the economy? When the largest players on Wallstreet fleece the American public for a TRILLION dollars. That's bad for the economy too. Are you overlooking this, or do you just not believe that introducing a few extra trillion dollars into the economy in 6 years is bad for it?

    It's just mindboggling how you can even attempt to turn the economic situation into an indictment of Obama's tax plan. Where do you think this money will come from? Please tell me. Just say it. "It will appear out of thin air." No. Try again.

    Freedom isn't free. Neither is money. The basic truth is that every dollar printed is immediately worth less than a dollar. "Maybe we should just print some more to pay for the money we just printed. Will that work?" Sure. If you want America to have the inflation rate of Zimbawe.

    It's poor rationalizations like the one's you are attempting that are the reason we keep getting a pole driven up our asses. You think because the people you are defending have an (R) by their name, they must therefore be for the things you believe. They don't give a shit about you. You think McCain will overturn Roe v. Wade if he's elected? No. If GWB didn't do it, McCain won't either. It's just something that must be said in order to rally the troops--so they can continue to rob us.

    Quote Originally Posted by justsayin View Post
    If a portion of SS had been privatized into the market, I would be thinking about all the great deals I would be getting on my weekly index fund purchases.
    Are you purposely misunderstanding the issue here? This is like trying to play poker with a 3-year old. Pay ATTENTION!!



    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    "It means your own money would grow better than that which the government can make it grow. And that's important." --George W. Bush, on what private accounts could do for Social Security funds, Falls Church, Va., April 29, 2005
    I know I could grow my own money better, managing it on my own, even in the current market conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities

    Winter 2000
    Howard Husock


    The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

    The CRA's premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to foreclosure. The CRA's logic also helps to ensure that inner-city neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that might make them better off.

    The Act, which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977, grew out of the complaint that urban banks were "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, refusing to lend to their residents while using their deposits to finance suburban expansion. CRA decreed that banks have "an affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered...

    >>>snip

    This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.

    A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not.

    >>>snip

    Even without a no-down-payment policy, the pressure on banks to make CRA-related loans may be leading to foreclosures. Though bankers generally cheerlead for CRA out of fear of being branded racists if they do not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbles that 20 percent of his institution's CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure. "The problem with CRA," says an executive with a major national financial-services firm, "is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating."

    >>>snip

    Looking into the future gives further cause for concern: "The bulk of these loans," notes a Federal Reserve economist, "have been made during a period in which we have not experienced an economic downturn."
    Just to note that fact that Clinton DID oversee this Carter boondoggle, it just took a few years to come to fruition.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    Just to note that fact that Clinton DID oversee this Carter boondoggle, it just took a few years to come to fruition.
    What's your point? Clinton guaranteed money for some poor people to get home mortgages? I hope you're not trying to imply that Clinton is the reason for... you are trying to blame this on Clinton.

    Amazing. Fucking amazing.

    Anything that happens under Clinton was Clinton's fault. Anything "bad" that happens from the Clinton administration on, is Clinton's fault.

    Look. Mrs. Smith, if you want to talk about causes and effects, that's fine, but do not assume your selective history makes much of a case to anyone else outside your echo chamber.

    I'm not about to say that the democrats are without corruption. Corruption has no political party--it is a natural consequence of a lack of oversight and the concentration of power.

    All I'm saying is, let's call this what it is: a fleecing of the public with state complicity. A few very wealthy people got wealthier and now we are being forced to pay for it. Instead of thinking about political parties like sports teams--like we have to pledge allegiance no matter what, and instead of looking for something in Clinton's admin that looks familiar--we should fire these assholes in office.

    No one is going to turn over Roe v Wade. No one is going to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage. No one is going to ban gun ownership on the federal level. These laws are all regulated by the states anyway. They are only distractions used to rile people up.


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •