It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Republicans Are Obsessed With Deregulating Wall Street

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Dodd-Fank needs to be dismantled as it has done the exact opposite of what it was intended to do which was limit the size of the large banks. They have only gotten larger while smaller, more local banks have found it harder to do business.





edit on 11-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I work in the financial industry and Dodd Frank is a nightmare and in particular the idiots at the CFPB. The problem is the average Gruber voter has no idea how all these regulations affect them and raises their cost. It is almost pointless trying to explain the compliance burden to people who don't have to deal with it on a daily basis. It is just over their head.

It sounds good to reign in the big bad banks, but has actually happened is that it is crushing the small guy instead. See the big banks have the resources to deal with all the extra compliance and cost associated, the small credit union or local bank doesn't.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Man! that is crazy. I need to think about this for awhile. It kind of makes me angry. I look at my grandchildren and I could spit on these bankers, congressman, and presidents.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Can you give me an example of what regulation is harder on a small bank? And can't there be tiered regulations by the size of the bank?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I can't from a banking perspective, but I can from a pharma one and there will be similarities.

Every reg that demands a standard be proved comes with a burden of proof on the company that is established via testing. The testing costs must all be absorbed by the company, and when the proof is established it must be properly documented. It is not enough to have one original copy that is Xeroxed and sent to all relevant regulatory agencies involved. They all have their separate forms and require their own original documentation. Additionally, all documentation and testing data and relevant information must be kept on hand should an inspector appear and demand it at any time.

There's more, but that's a rough idea. In short, there are entire positions and departments built around making sure all the rules are followed.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp


Free markets for free people.


In a world where speculation and insider trading is the norm rather than the exception; you have the nerve to talk about free markets for free people?




It must be nice living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bea....


Why, you don't want free markets?


Does this look like a free market to you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...
edit on 11-11-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp


Free markets for free people.


In a world where speculation and insider trading is the norm rather than the exception; you have the nerve to talk about free markets for free people?




It must be nice living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bea....


Why, you don't want free markets?


As long as the human equation of corruption is thrown in, there can be no "Free Market"
It is the same reason that Communism, Socialism and Capitalism Fail.
Banks donating billions to politicians to rig the markets in their favor is not a Free Market.
Big Business donating billions to politicians to rig the markets in their favor is not Competition Based Capitalism.

There is a lot of collusion, not competition between the Big Players.

The TPP is a prime example of all types of Corporations colluding together to screw over everyone else.
Where are the consumers and workers in the negotiating process with the TPP?

Consumers and workers are part of the "Free Market" as well.
edit on 11-11-2015 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

It sounds good to reign in the big bad banks, but has actually happened is that it is crushing the small guy instead. See the big banks have the resources to deal with all the extra compliance and cost associated, the small credit union or local bank doesn't.




Can you give examples of policies that would be beneficial to small banks and detrimental the big banks?
Just a couple?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I did a quick research on that, because I have always wondered what R&D was. I could not find much except pharma is spending a lot more on marketing rather than R&D. And billions of that goes to the pockets of doctors. I am not sure how any of that helps me, a consumer.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ketsuko

I did a quick research on that, because I have always wondered what R&D was. I could not find much except pharma is spending a lot more on marketing rather than R&D. And billions of that goes to the pockets of doctors. I am not sure how any of that helps me, a consumer.



Most of the research and cures in this country is actually done by universities and the center for disease control.
Big Pharma is the ones that take over the test trials, distribution and manufacturing arm of it.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp


Free markets for free people.


In a world where speculation and insider trading is the norm rather than the exception; you have the nerve to talk about free markets for free people?




It must be nice living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bea....


Why, you don't want free markets?


As long as the human equation of corruption is thrown in, there can be no "Free Market"
It is the same reason that Communism, Socialism and Capitalism Fail.
Banks donating billions to politicians to rig the markets in their favor is not a Free Market.
Big Business donating billions to politicians to rig the markets in their favor is not Competition Based Capitalism.

There is a lot of collusion, not competition between the Big Players.

The TPP is a prime example of all types of Corporations colluding together to screw over everyone else.
Where are the consumers and workers in the negotiating process with the TPP?

Consumers and workers are part of the "Free Market" as well.


On the contrary, the potential for corruption will always be present in human interactions.

Only statist interventionism systematizes it.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp


Free markets for free people.


In a world where speculation and insider trading is the norm rather than the exception; you have the nerve to talk about free markets for free people?




It must be nice living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bea....


Why, you don't want free markets?


Does this look like a free market to you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...


No, it most certainly does not.

That is my point, interventionism produces negative results which are then used as false evidence for further interventions.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: greencmp
In a truly free market, reputation would be the only thing. That and satisfying consumer need most effectively.


This is one of the most naive positions you will ever hear. We can literally smash this idea with one example....

BP dumped around 200 million gallons of oil into the ocean and then tried to cover up the actual damage done. How about their reputation? Wouldn't BP's reputation in the free market dictated that consumers would have boycotted BP's production forcing them to take massive losses on their profit margin? And nothing the government would have done would have influenced the outcome, being as that the onus was on the consumer and the free market. If the free market was such an undeniable and powerful force why didn't we see a worldwide boycott?

Indeed BP's profits are now starting to take some hits, but it has nothing to do with the free market making them pay for their maleficence. For the most part their shareholders investments remained stable during and right after the crisis. Only recently have their bottom lines taken some minor hits because of a decline in the pricing of crude and a COMPENSATORY PAYOUT FOR DAMAGES FORCED ONTO THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.


This is a good challenging example to dissect.

The subsidies and, therefore, expected returns the state has extended to big oil should have destroyed the reputation of both BP and the federal government. It was clearly not in either's interest for that to happen.

Even that catastrophe wasn't enough for the federal government to break ties so, the unholy alliance persevered.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: greencmp

Ok. I kind of know all that from listening to the news when all this was crashing, but that article is written clearly. I clearly remember Bush always saying, spend, spend, spend. Now, I am not sure if I completely grasp deriviatives. Let's say, I buy a house with one loan from one bank, few hands in the pot so to speak. But with that derivative scheme, several hands are in the pot, wanting their part from it? Is this the fault of homeowners and does that scheme even sound safe?



It's really about the artificial credit (which is the goal of Keynesian economics) being pumped into the economy which fueled wild speculation throughout the economy. The resulting malinvestment consumed good capital along with bad resulting in an overall lowering of available capital for sound investment.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Why don't we have regulations for large banks, and other regulations for small banks? Why does every bank have to be under the same regulations? Why not implement a progressive system that incurs more regulation as the bank grows in size? This might help foster more numerous, smaller banks.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The republican platform hasnt changed in decades, in short it is:

Deregulate
Cut taxes
shrink government

The payoff, they have asserted, is that doing these things would create jobs. Well, we have been doing these things for 35 years, and the only jobs created have been sweatshops in 3rd world countries. Deregulation caused the financial crash, the banking crisis of the 1980s, and an increasingly unstable economy. Cutting taxes for the rich results in more wealth for the rich and not much else. I cant help but think that shrinking government is facilitated simply to increase the power and scope of ruthless predatory capitalism.

So 30 years of republican ideology has created a paradise for 1 percent of the population, and near slavery for the rest of us. They have succeeded in turning this country into an oligarchy, and now they want to institute feudalism in some fashion.

And the democrats have for the most part been their willing partners in these actions. They have all but raised a white flag to the assault on our democracy. IMHO they are simply the OTHER wing of the republican party.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Mmmm...well, somebody in the economy is making money cause Wall Street has bounced back from 2008 and then some. But not homeowners who can't sell, and young people who can't buy. I don't think investors give a dam about sound investment. Just quick ones.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Why don't we have regulations for large banks, and other regulations for small banks? Why does every bank have to be under the same regulations? Why not implement a progressive system that incurs more regulation as the bank grows in size? This might help foster more numerous, smaller banks.


Because the morons who wrote Dodd-Frank did not have an economic degree; one had a law degree and the other a degree in government (and then became a lawyer as well).

This is like having your landscaper and plumber work on your Chevy.







edit on 11-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I wasn't talking about R&D. My husband knows much more about it. His job is directly related to it. He is the compliance person. His job is specifically to make sure that every single batch of every single product that comes through Quality Control (they all do) is tested in every way needed for every regulatory agency that monitors every market it will be sold in around the world (or the various validation and testing processes needed to prove that new practices will work well enough for a regulatory agency's purposes).

Regulatory Compliance is not R&D, but Quality Control. There is an active R&D department, and he works with it too to track what testing will need to potentially be done for potential new product. Quality Control does track testing for new trial products.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The republican platform hasnt changed in decades, in short it is:

Deregulate
Cut taxes
shrink government

The payoff, they have asserted, is that doing these things would create jobs. Well, we have been doing these things for 35 years, and the only jobs created have been sweatshops in 3rd world countries. Deregulation caused the financial crash, the banking crisis of the 1980s, and an increasingly unstable economy. Cutting taxes for the rich results in more wealth for the rich and not much else. I cant help but think that shrinking government is facilitated simply to increase the power and scope of ruthless predatory capitalism.

So 30 years of republican ideology has created a paradise for 1 percent of the population, and near slavery for the rest of us. They have succeeded in turning this country into an oligarchy, and now they want to institute feudalism in some fashion.

And the democrats have for the most part been their willing partners in these actions. They have all but raised a white flag to the assault on our democracy. IMHO they are simply the OTHER wing of the republican party.


Doing those things would hurt entrenched interests and their ability to manipulate the regulatory body which would help everyone.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join