Republicans Are Obsessed With Deregulating Wall Street

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Just because perfection cannot be achieved or appears to be a daunting task is no reason not to attempt it.

I guess that is what it boils down to.

That is exactly what it boils down to. You think it is a bad thing because perfection cannot be achieved, but I think it is at LEAST better than nothing. Though I have stats, data, and history backing up my opinion. Deregulating the banks is probably the dumbest thing our government could ever do.

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


"Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts," said Carly Fiorina, who has never held public office but was once ranked by Portfolio magazine as the 19th-worst American CEO of all time.

This comment really did make me choke on my cereal, the hypocrisy of these people is frightening.

Basically what this idiot is saying is that, socialism is the enemy, except when we need the state to bail us out.

The lot of them are crooks, absolutely rotten to the core.

There are 2 sayings that describe this: "Socialize the risk, privatize the profits" and "Privatizing profit and socializing risk". If you ever get bored enough, I'd advise you to look into them. These describe the business concept of keeping all rewards for yourself while getting taxpayers to pay for any losses, insurance costs, research and development, etc. A lot of companies and industries use variations of this, as you can probably guess.

So yes, you're correct. Socialism is only "the enemy" to them when it hurts their profits. But they absolutely love it when it reduces their business costs or covers up their mistakes.

And there's a second form of socialism that they love called "corporate welfare", which may even be worse. Because even healthy firms can get corporate welfare in the form of subsidies, grants, tax breaks, and the such.

Edit to add: There's another reason I think corporate welfare may be worse. With "socialize the risks, privatize the profits", the taxpayers just pay for things that can cause a loss to the company. But with corporate welfare, taxpayer money helps pay for normal business operations. So it could be described as "socialize the costs, privatize the profits". Even some jobs programs and R&D grants/subsidies are like this.

There's even a riddle I learned from some investment books (paraphrased): "How do you make something for $10, sell it for $1, and still make a profit?" Well, this post gives you a few hints on how they do it.

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: greencmp
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.

lol!

The governments reputation is already destroyed.... Their approval rating can't get much lower.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job overall, while 63% rate the current Congress poorly.

Rasmussen

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

You're damn right it wasn't enough to break ties. Especially considering the amounts of money they lobbied with.

That BP lobbied lawmakers on the penalties companies faced for spills, as it faced penalties for causing a spill itself, underscores how even the most embattled company often sees Congress as a worthy investment. BP spent $8.43 million in 2011 on efforts to influence legislation. While that total fell far short of the nearly $16 million it spent on lobbying in 2009 -- much of it on working to defeat cap and trade legislation -- it represented a $1 million uptick from 2010 levels. It was also about .0324 percent of the company's $26 billion in profits from last year: a small price to pay to ensure the preferred legislative outcomes for the firestorm it ignited.

“It really is outrageous that after being responsible for the largest oil spill in our nation’s history, BP spent more than $8 million on D.C. lobbyists to try, among other things, to escape any effort to shut off the spigot of taxpayer subsidies,” Menendez told The Huffington Post.

Huff Post

Now who's the captain of the ship in this arrangement?

And yet you still have faith in government.

Why?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Just because perfection cannot be achieved or appears to be a daunting task is no reason not to attempt it.

I guess that is what it boils down to.

That is exactly what it boils down to. You think it is a bad thing because perfection cannot be achieved, but I think it is at LEAST better than nothing. Though I have stats, data, and history backing up my opinion. Deregulating the banks is probably the dumbest thing our government could ever do.

But, it's worse than nothing.

a reply to: greencmp

No it isn't. That is demonstrably and completely false.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

No it isn't. That is demonstrably and completely false.

Alrighty then.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So you think what happened to our economy in the years leading up to a 2008 wasn't a bad thing and we shouldn't have ANY legislation whatsoever on the books to prevent it from happening again?

WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, the Cold War, Vietnam, 20% home loans, The Dot.Com NASDAQ crash, the Housing Bubble Bust, and the Banker bailout were all caused or enabled (could not have happened without) central banking.

Central banking is a socialist requirement.

Without central banking, money would be in savings or directly invested in specific projects. No legislation needed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is my question for you. Do you know what the Dodd-Frank bill is? Can you describe it without googling it?

The answer is obvious. No you can't. Simply stating it didn't effect small banks shows your complete ignorance of this. EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE knows this effected small banks. Even WIKI says it:

Source

Effects on small banks[edit]
Associated Press reported that in response to the costs that the legislation places on banks, some banks have ended the practice of giving their customers free checking.[246]

Small banks have been forced to end some businesses such as mortgages and car loans in response to the new regulations. The size of regulatory compliance teams has grown.[247] The Heritage Foundation, calling attention to the new ability of borrowers to sue lenders for misjudging their ability to repay a loan, predicted that smaller lenders would be forced to exit the mortgage market due to increased risk.[248]

But hey, go ahead and continue to let someone else on a blog tell you how to think.

All Dodd-Frank did was make big banks bigger, and even more "too big to fail". The local county bank near my house in SE GA sold out to GeoVista last year.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where is your degree in banking and/or economics from again?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Oh stop! First off, the Great Depression was caused by a deregulation of banks. The housing bubble bust was also caused by the same thing. Then laying BOTH world wars at the feet of central banking is just dishonest. There were more factors involved than just that that caused those wars. Same with the Cold War and Vietnam War.

The republicans do not like history and the saddest thing is that they have all seen it in full force:

At one time, banks were not regulated not was wall street. And if memory serves correctly that caused the biggest bubble to burst, and plunged the entire world into a depression. Then the banks were regulated to prevent that from happening. Then the next finance industry to take a hit, was more recent, the 1980's S&L bubble that burst where it created a problem for not only banking but also housing. Tech bubble was next, and then another and another. The problem is that these bubbles keep getting bigger and bigger. Did they not pay attention to the last major recession where it could have gone into a full depression, or how countries are still trying to recover coming back from the brink of failure and collaspe, all centered and surrounding the banking industry.

If they deregulate such, stock up and wait for the shoe to drop and prepare for a burst that will hit the entire world.

a reply to: raymundoko

Sure whatever. So you are against the Dodd-Frank bill then?

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where is your degree in banking and/or economics from again?

Oh I didn't know there was an entry barrier for posting a thread on ATS? Oh wait, there isn't. So how about addressing the topic and stop deflecting with personal attacks against the person presenting the information?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where is your degree in banking and/or economics from again?

Oh I didn't know there was an entry barrier for posting a thread on ATS? Oh wait, there isn't. So how about addressing the topic and stop deflecting with personal attacks against the person presenting the information?

I generally don't post about things I don't know about. Your post is transparently anti-conservative in nature and less about Dodd-Frank


.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Ok. Sounds good. So do you think that Dodd-Frank is a bad law and agree with the Republican Presidential candidates wanting to repeal it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Ok. Sounds good. So do you think that Dodd-Frank is a bad law and agree with the Republican Presidential candidates wanting to repeal it?

I'd have to research it more since I am not familiar with the law in its entirety. I would also surmise that the candidates in question know more about it than I do. Given that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are both left wingers, I would assume that you'd defend the legislation to your death, never having read it.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The republicans do not like history and the saddest thing is that they have all seen it in full force:

At one time, banks were not regulated not was wall street. And if memory serves correctly that caused the biggest bubble to burst, and plunged the entire world into a depression. Then the banks were regulated to prevent that from happening. Then the next finance industry to take a hit, was more recent, the 1980's S&L bubble that burst where it created a problem for not only banking but also housing. Tech bubble was next, and then another and another. The problem is that these bubbles keep getting bigger and bigger. Did they not pay attention to the last major recession where it could have gone into a full depression, or how countries are still trying to recover coming back from the brink of failure and collaspe, all centered and surrounding the banking industry.

If they deregulate such, stock up and wait for the shoe to drop and prepare for a burst that will hit the entire world.

What you fail to understand is that regulations are BACKWARD looking. You cannot stop bubbles and all the other games that unscrupulous people will play. It simply is not possible. You can't regulate away every bad thing that can happen.

I am not against well thought out regulations, but that is not what we actually get. You get regulations driven by lobbyist, larger companies with agendas, etc The regulations do very little to protect consumers but create mounds of compliance and extraneous costs that ultimately the consumer pays.

Dodd-Frank isn't even totally implemented and billions have been wasted just trying to understand it and comply. Small companies having to hire expensive attorneys, hire permanent staff, etc. Dodd-Frank was supposed to stop banks from being Too Big Too Fail but it did nothing of the sort. In fact, it basically made them untouchable and is driving smaller banks out of business.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Ok. Sounds good. So do you think that Dodd-Frank is a bad law and agree with the Republican Presidential candidates wanting to repeal it?

I'd have to research it more since I am not familiar with the law in its entirety. I would also surmise that the candidates in question know more about it than I do. Given that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are both left wingers, I would assume that you'd defend the legislation to your death, never having read it.

Seeing how Fiorina compared it to Socialism, I'm going to have to say you are wrong in that regard. The way those candidates spoke, they knew next to NOTHING about Dodd-Frank.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So then, what good is the FDIC label if all those accounts are gone like they never existed?

FDIC is only good in the event a single bank goes out of business, maybe not even some of the larger ones. It can at the most only recover about 2% of total accounts though in the event of another 2008 and while some people pretend that it's there to cover everything, it's not. A program that covers everything isn't possible, that's just not how insurance works.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If the bank fails, then it would be "investor beware" -- the customer should be informed and choose to park/invest their money with a reputable bank that has a history of being solvent and responsible.

OTOH -- This isn't always 100% realistic, as large banks can often times be doing things that the average American isn't aware of.

This doesn't work, for any product because we don't exist in a system of perfect information, instead the purchaser has imperfect information and therefore can't make an informed decision. And even if they could, some people aren't going to make the right decision and will lose out. In fact, if everyone made a 100% informed decision and only went with the best company, it would trigger a collapse of all companies but 1 as they would lose all their customers, there can only be one best.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Ok. Sounds good. So do you think that Dodd-Frank is a bad law and agree with the Republican Presidential candidates wanting to repeal it?

I'd have to research it more since I am not familiar with the law in its entirety. I would also surmise that the candidates in question know more about it than I do. Given that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are both left wingers, I would assume that you'd defend the legislation to your death, never having read it.

Seeing how Fiorina compared it to Socialism, I'm going to have to say you are wrong in that regard. The way those candidates spoke, they knew next to NOTHING about Dodd-Frank.

Considering that the law is so vast, hardly anyone knows all of it in its entirety which is the problem. No laws should be passed that is thicker than War & Peace and requires an army of white shoe law firm attorneys to understand. I know how it affects me in my banking world and it has been a fustercluck.