Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

  1. #51
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Gramm Leach is a big component of the deregulation we refer to.
    That was passed in 1999... under Clinton.

    That kind of undermines all the rhetoric about how deregulation under Bush and Reagan is to blame.

  2. #52
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    That was passed in 1999... under Clinton.

    That kind of undermines all the rhetoric about how deregulation under Bush and Reagan is to blame.
    Personally, I'm not trying to pin it on one person in particular, but it was a problem. Do you disagree with the assertion that this act was a contributor?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    1) I was paraphrasing what was in the post I quoted for purposes of clarification and commenting.

    2) Not necessarily. Free market doesn't mean corporations be allowed to run the Government and/or engage in practices that could harm the public.
    Who said anything about corporations being allowed to run the government or harm the public?

    That's the question. How do we allow for both?
    Answer: We can't.

    You cannot have a "free market economy" when there is a mandated ceiling on corporate growth. You...just...can't.

    Free enterprise and sensible consumer protection.
    How is it "free enterprise" when the government restricts the amount of enterprise a person may engage in?

    If tax-payers are footing the bill for bad behavior, are we be protected? Once you label a company too big to fail--meaning the resulting failure cause devastating ripple effect, then hasn't the company become a potential liability to the public--the burden of risk of failure outweighs the good and services they provide.
    There is no such thing as "too big to fail". No company should ever be given such a label.

    This is a popular extremist or idealist view of what the free market 'should' be. This absolute 'free' market is totally unworkable--a business and industry anarchy where anything goes.
    Ah, the anarchy strawman. Very original.

    A very limited understanding of the U.S. economy. The notion that even the smallest regulation means the absolute free market doesn't exist is moronic.
    Another strawman. I never suggested such a thing.

    Think of a flee market where every vender is allowed to set up where they want. They would all place their booths right at the entrance. Then no customers could get in to view goods. No sales would be made. The market would collapse. There needs to be some organization and protection of the consumer.
    Anarchy strawman disguised as an analogy.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Who said anything about corporations being allowed to run the government or harm the public?
    Banks and Wall Street engaged in risky practices--risking the investments of millions of Americans, pensions, 401ks...

    Have you been living in cave?


    You cannot have a "free market economy" when there is a mandated ceiling on corporate growth. You...just...can't.
    Again, you are idealizing the notion of 'free'. Or more likely misunderstanding the whole concept of 'free market'. You should focus on the work 'market'. I think that would help you get the concept straight in your head.

    The market has regular business hours. The market keeps regular records. The market sells safe products and provides legal services. The word 'free' is referring to a level playing field and honest competition. The winner provides the best product/service at the best price. Consumers are free to choose.

    How is it "free enterprise" when the government restricts the amount of enterprise a person may engage in?
    Give an example. A person is not a corporation.



    There is no such thing as "too big to fail". No company should ever be given such a label.
    Right or wrong -- the label does exist. And was used as a justification for Government bailouts.



    Ah, the anarchy strawman. Very original.

    Another strawman. I never suggested such a thing.

    Anarchy strawman disguised as an analogy.

    Sorry, but calling my counter-point a strawman is a pretty feeble way to back off your extremist view and misunderstanding about 'free market.'

    You implied that any rules negate a free market. If you are now going to back off that POV, you're certainly free to do so. If you wish to clarify your point, be my guest. But don't embarrass yourself by misusing logical fallacy terms.

    So, explain what type of 'rules' or government regulation you deem appropriate.

    And, should we allow a 'too big to fail' company to fail, what role should the federal government play in aiding the communities who suffer from the fallout?

    Debtors' Prisons?

    Orphanages?

    Martial Law Tent camps?

  5. #55
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Personally, I'm not trying to pin it on one person in particular, but it was a problem. Do you disagree with the assertion that this act was a contributor?
    I have no idea, and would have to spend a lot of time reading about it.

    But earlier I was responding to tjinta ibis's attempt to pin it on Bush and Reagan.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Banks and Wall Street engaged in risky practices--risking the investments of millions of Americans, pensions, 401ks...

    Have you been living in cave?
    What risky practices would those be?

    Who's "Wall Street"?

    Isn't risk part of investing?

    Again, you are idealizing the notion of 'free'. Or more likely misunderstanding the whole concept of 'free market'. You should focus on the work 'market'. I think that would help you get the concept straight in your head.

    The market has regular business hours. The market keeps regular records. The market sells safe products and provides legal services. The word 'free' is referring to a level playing field and honest competition. The winner provides the best product/service at the best price. Consumers are free to choose.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue right now. A government cap on corporate growth is not compatible with free market economics.

    Give an example. A person is not a corporation.
    I'm referring to your theoretical cap on corporate growth. How can you call it "free market economics" when market share is pre-determined by the government -

    Right or wrong -- the label does exist. And was used as a justification for Government bailouts.
    Once a business assumes this label, what incentive is there for them stop taking excessive risks?

    Sorry, but calling my counter-point a strawman is a pretty feeble way to back off your extremist view and misunderstanding about 'free market.'
    They were counter-points to an argument I never made, ergo, strawmen.

    You implied that any rules negate a free market.
    Oh. I implied it, did I? You must be very perceptive, reading into people's thoughts like that.

    If you are now going to back off that POV, you're certainly free to do so. If you wish to clarify your point, be my guest. But don't embarrass yourself by misusing logical fallacy terms.
    I can't back off a POV I never held, and I can't clarify a point I never made. I'll stop referencing logical fallacies as soon as you stop using them to support your position.

    So, explain what type of 'rules' or government regulation you deem appropriate.
    Ones that protect people from coercion and fraud.

    And, should we allow a 'too big to fail' company to fail, what role should the federal government play in aiding the communities who suffer from the fallout?
    Tax cuts.

    Temporary programs designed to offer transitional assistance to families living in poverty.

    Of course, the fallout might have been smaller - even non-existent - had the government adhered to free market principles in the first place.



    No
    Debtors' Prisons?

    Orphanages?

    Martial Law Tent camps?

  7. #57
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    What risky practices would those be?

    Who's "Wall Street"?

    Isn't risk part of investing?
    Risk, but not to facilitate systemic risk, i.e. a run on our financial system.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue right now. A government cap on corporate growth is not compatible with free market economics.
    Sure it is, but we have to be careful in our definition. Laissez faire is a theoretical concept... even a crude version of "perfect competition". We can trace these instances back to the post colonial economy, post civil war economy, or prior to the Great Depression; the private sector has been more than willing to rely on government intervention whenever the prospect seemed favorable (however i do not hold judgment for this). Whether they use tax incentives, subsidies, taxes, licensing, compliance to new rules, currency, etc... the two (business and government) will be forever intertwined.

    I'm referring to your theoretical cap on corporate growth. How can you call it "free market economics" when market share is pre-determined by the government -
    Anti trust legislation is vital to achieving a working level of competition in many industries. Otherwise, the consumers lose right off the bat!

    Once a business assumes this label, what incentive is there for them stop taking excessive risks?
    Then they should be broken up, and all aspects of future consolidation be carefully monitored. Like Ma Bell

    Tax cuts.
    In regards to relativity, it could be considered government intervention.

    Temporary programs designed to offer transitional assistance to families living in poverty.
    Agreed. There is the problem of turning starving people with children away. I for one do not believe the problem can be adequately "solved". Market systems require a form of poverty to maintain productivity to serve as the necessary reminder... the "risks" of non-conformity.

    Of course, the fallout might have been smaller - even non-existent - had the government adhered to free market principles in the first place.
    Perhaps.... What is clear is that social safety nets have diminished the unleashing of "animal spirits". This is undeniable! So is the new nature of business... where in the name of "profit" firms accept welfare, subsidies, guaranteed credit, favorable terms of trade, etc... to the point where going back to the good ole days is only a pipe dream.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    What risky practices would those be?

    Who's "Wall Street"?

    Isn't risk part of investing?
    You have been living in a cave.



    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue right now. A government cap on corporate growth is not compatible with free market economics.
    I'm talking about safeguards against economic depression. "Cap" is your word. Please don't put it in my mouth.



    I'm referring to your theoretical cap on corporate growth. How can you call it "free market economics" when market share is pre-determined by the government -
    Again, your words, not mine. For someone so sensitive to strawmen, you're building them left and right here...



    Once a business assumes this label, what incentive is there for them stop taking excessive risks?
    Agreed. I haven't said anything different. You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    There is no such thing as "too big to fail". No company should ever be given such a label.
    And I reminded you that right or wrong the label exists.



    They were counter-points to an argument I never made, ergo, strawmen.
    You made a vague stab at the "any regs mean no Free Market" popular misunderstanding of the overall concept of the Free Market.

    I have asked you to restate or further expand upon your position.



    Oh. I implied it, did I? You must be very perceptive, reading into people's thoughts like that.
    I was being polite with "implied". You dance around it, trying to pretend you knew what you were talking.

    Again, you have the floor. You can keeping trying to tell me what you 'meant' say all day long, but that don't mean crap. Let's hear it. Tell us all about the 'Free Market' and appropriate rules and regulations.



    I can't back off a POV I never held, and I can't clarify a point I never made. I'll stop referencing logical fallacies as soon as you stop using them to support your position.
    That's the problem, when you're vague and make general remarks, no one knows what you mean. So tell me.



    Ones that protect people from coercion and fraud.
    Anything else?



    Tax cuts.

    Temporary programs designed to offer transitional assistance to families living in poverty.

    Of course, the fallout might have been smaller - even non-existent - had the government adhered to free market principles in the first place.
    Tax cuts to whom? The unemployed. The homeless. The failed companies.

    How much would the these "transitional programs" cost? House, feeding, educating, moving millions of people.

    Again, you make the mistake of focusing on 'free' and not 'market'. I agree the level playing field does not exists. But that is the fault of Government and big corporations.

    But to make it exist, to bring it into existence and NOT endure and entire economic collapse and rebuilding of the system -- that is the rub.

  9. #59
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    You know, we already HAD a good law. It was the Glass-Steagal Act, which walled the insurance, banking, and investment sectors of the economy from each other. Our government got rid of that with the Gramm-Bliley Act, which was the beginning of the end for our economy as we once knew it, and led to today's Great Recession. The government can get rid of this too, any time they wish to. All it takes is another special interest that our Congresscritters can whore themselves out to.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #60
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    01-12-12 @ 02:55 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    205

    Re: Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Capitalism and free enterprise, dirty words...
    You mean like sex and no moral code?

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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