• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

Dav said:
No, my view, unlike yours, is supported by both logic and history.



It wouldn't encourage the kind of behavior that got us into the mess in the first place. If you're just going to get bailed out in the end, where's the disincentive?
Click to expand...

The people running the ponzi schemes made out with lots of money. Where's the disincentive for them? They don't care about their company.
 
just a bit off topic, what exactly makes obama a marxist, i mean, sure he's a bit more left than bush, but still, the entire Australian political system is left, our right wing party is called the liberals, and we're no where near communism, sadly enough, so unless he starts dissloving the state, i guess he's not marxist, but for those who claim he is, what makes him so?
 
apdst said:
I have a huge probem with this. Who gets to decide which companies war broken up and on what grounds do they make that decision?

This is bad. I can see it already.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

It keeps the riche-wing business-owing ****bags in check. It's a check/balance on business greed.

It's a good thing... for EVERYBODY except the reiche-wing assholes who run corrupt criminal business enterprises.
 
the makeout hobo said:
The people running the ponzi schemes made out with lots of money. Where's the disincentive for them? They don't care about their company.
Click to expand...

You mind providing specifics?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Look at the golden parachute the people running AIG made. They don't care that AIG got bailed out, they're rich.
Click to expand...

How does the bailout not matter for them? Obviously they were rich to begin with, but you don't think that their company failing would have been a bad thing for them?
 
spud_meister said:
just a bit off topic, what exactly makes obama a marxist, i mean, sure he's a bit more left than bush, but still, the entire Australian political system is left, our right wing party is called the liberals, and we're no where near communism, sadly enough, so unless he starts dissloving the state, i guess he's not marxist, but for those who claim he is, what makes him so?
Click to expand...


Lots of luck with that question, I started a thread asking someone to “Describe the meaning of socialism” and got three responses. Most here use the term because ….well because of Rush,Sean,etc etc said so.:2wave:
 
Dav said:
How does the bailout not matter for them? Obviously they were rich to begin with, but you don't think that their company failing would have been a bad thing for them?
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how it was bad, personally, for them, seeing as they made out with several million dollars.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Please explain to me how it was bad, personally, for them, seeing as they made out with several million dollars.
Click to expand...

What, the bailout? I'm confused now. I said that the lack of bailout would have been a bad thing for them.
 
Dav said:
What, the bailout? I'm confused now. I said that the lack of bailout would have been a bad thing for them.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that they were already rich from doing shaky financial deals, and got a huge severance package, so why would it have been bad for them?
 
the makeout hobo said:
And I'm saying that they were already rich from doing shaky financial deals, and got a huge severance package, so why would it have been bad for them?
Click to expand...

Which people are these, specifically? Do you have links?
 
Dav said:
Which people are these, specifically? Do you have links?
Click to expand...

I remember it was all over the news. I'm working on a term paper right now so I'm a bit too busy to do any other research, but you can look it up if you want.
 
apdst said:
I have a huge probem with this. Who gets to decide which companies war broken up and on what grounds do they make that decision?

This is bad. I can see it already.
Click to expand...

What are your views on anti trust legislation?
 
And this is what an expert on economics has to say, and republican fat cats and their lackeys in congress won't like it one bit.

Let’s recall how we got into our current mess.
America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to give bankers what they wanted.

The first big wave of deregulation took place under Ronald Reagan — and quickly led to disaster, in the form of the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. Taxpayers ended up paying more than 2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of around $300 billion today, to clean up the mess.

But the proponents of deregulation were undaunted, and in the decade leading up to the current crisis politicians in both parties bought into the notion that New Deal-era restrictions on bankers were nothing but pointless red tape. In a memorable 2003 incident, top bank regulators staged a photo-op in which they used garden shears and a chainsaw to cut up stacks of paper representing regulations.

And the bankers — liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn’t believe in regulation — responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.

Given this history, you might have expected the emergence of a national consensus in favor of restoring more-effective financial regulation, so as to avoid a repeat performance. But you would have been wrong.

Talk to conservatives about the financial crisis and you enter an alternative, bizarro universe in which government bureaucrats, not greedy bankers, caused the meltdown. It’s a universe in which government-sponsored lending agencies triggered the crisis, even though private lenders actually made the vast majority of subprime loans. It’s a universe in which regulators coerced bankers into making loans to unqualified borrowers, even though only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to the regulations in question.

Oh, and conservatives simply ignore the catastrophe in commercial real estate: in their universe the only bad loans were those made to poor people and members of minority groups, because bad loans to developers of shopping malls and office towers don’t fit the narrative.NY Times
Click to expand...

I continue to be amazed at conservatives who scream at big spending by govt., but scream at controlling those that caused this mess......who caused bigger spending to fix!
 
the makeout hobo said:
I remember it was all over the news. I'm working on a term paper right now so I'm a bit too busy to do any other research, but you can look it up if you want.
Click to expand...

All I could find in regards to a severance package was one that was rejected.

Wait... I just found this, which I assume is what you were talking about.

Still, I can't find proof that Sullivan was richer when he left than before the crisis, nor can I find the reason why the severance package was paid; it could be that they wouldn't have paid it without knowing that a bailout was just around the corner. Plus, it's not like Sullivan was solely responsible for AIG's decline.
 
tjinta ibis said:
And this is what an expert on economics has to say, and republican fat cats and their lackeys in congress won't like it one bit.



I continue to be amazed at conservatives who scream at big spending by govt., but scream at controlling those that caused this mess......who caused bigger spending to fix!
Click to expand...

I notice that lots of people blame "deregulation" as the cause of all the country's problems, but nobody ever mentions specifics.
 
Capitalism and free enterprise, dirty words...
 
jamesrage said:
I think the only reform they should is a "nobody is too big to fail".

If a huge business going under is really that much of a threat to the US economy then maybe they should consider placing limits on the size a company can grow, treat it like a monopoly.
Click to expand...

These are two very interesting ideas.

1) No one is too big to fail. Let the free market work.

But does the Federal Government have a duty to steer the country away from a major depression and the resulting poverty and crime? Or is a major crime wave, poverty etc. all part of 'reset' process.

2) Limiting corporate growth. -- I am surprised to hear a conservative say this. But the notion that a corporation can grow to such a size that it's actions, though not criminal, are contrary to the 'greater good' is one that I think a lot of people are becoming aware of.

  • Do these new Banking/Wall Street regs really protect us?
  • Weren't they written by legislators who receive huge contributions from Banking and Wall street?
  • I find it interesting that Health Care debate rages on, while this passes with relatively little fanfare.
  • Are small business and consumer interests being put ahead of corporate growth. Trickle down economics doesn't work when wealth becomes frozen at the top.

What you're talking about (I think) is a form of consumer protection--keeping the public safe from a de facto monopoly by one company or a group of companies who have grown into a position where their failure would cause a potential breakdown in the system.
 
hazlnut said:
These are two very interesting ideas.

1) No one is too big to fail. Let the free market work.

But does the Federal Government have a duty to steer the country away from a major depression and the resulting poverty and crime? Or is a major crime wave, poverty etc. all part of 'reset' process.

2) Limiting corporate growth. -- I am surprised to hear a conservative say this. But the notion that a corporation can grow to such a size that it's actions, though not criminal, are contrary to the 'greater good' is one that I think a lot of people are becoming aware of.

  • Do these new Banking/Wall Street regs really protect us?
  • Weren't they written by legislators who receive huge contributions from Banking and Wall street?
  • I find it interesting that Health Care debate rages on, while this passes with relatively little fanfare.
  • Are small business and consumer interests being put ahead of corporate growth. Trickle down economics doesn't work when wealth becomes frozen at the top.

What you're talking about (I think) is a form of consumer protection--keeping the public safe from a de facto monopoly by one company or a group of companies who have grown into a position where their failure would cause a potential breakdown in the system.
Click to expand...

Your second statement precludes the possibility of implementing the first.

How can we "let the free market work" when there is a ceiling on corporate growth?

This contradiction is a microcosm of the general failure in contemporary economic dialogue, i.e., most critics of free market capitalism don't actually know what it entails. That you would presume the existence of a "free market" in the US is evidence that you don't actually know what it is.

In reality, the US is a mixed economy with a foundation in Keynesian economics; Keynesian policy, being the utter antithesis to free market economics, is in no way representative of free markets.
 
hazlnut said:
These are two very interesting ideas.

1) No one is too big to fail. Let the free market work.

But does the Federal Government have a duty to steer the country away from a major depression and the resulting poverty and crime? Or is a major crime wave, poverty etc. all part of 'reset' process.
Click to expand...

The government has no responsibility to bail anyone out.The threat of poverty and a crime wave are not good excuses to bail out companies.


2) Limiting corporate growth. -- I am surprised to hear a conservative say this.
Click to expand...

I am sure that you will find that a lot of conservatives are not for totally unrestricted capitalism.
 
Ethereal said:
Your second statement precludes the possibility of implementing the first.
Click to expand...

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.


How can we "let the free market work" when there is a ceiling on corporate growth?
Click to expand...

That's the question. How do we allow for both. Free enterprise and sensible consumer protection. 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.

This contradiction is a microcosm of the general failure in contemporary economic dialogue, i.e., most critics of free market capitalism don't actually know what it entails. That you would presume the existence of a "free market" in the US is evidence that you don't actually know what it is.
Click to expand...

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.

In reality, the US is a mixed economy with a foundation in Keynesian economics; Keynesian policy, being the utter antithesis to free market economics, is in no way representative of free markets.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Free market does assume a level playing field. "Too big to fail" gives an unfair influence to those companies.
 
jamesrage said:
The government has no responsibility to bail anyone out.The threat of poverty and a crime wave are not good excuses to bail out companies.
Click to expand...


I think people who grew up during the Great Depression might have a different point of view.

I agree with what you said about "too big to fail" but the fallout from a major depression has to be considered, and, to the extent the government can help communities survive...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom