Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

Dav · Dec 14, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
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.

the makeout hobo · Dec 14, 2009

Dav said:
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?

Ethereal · Dec 14, 2009

hazlnut said:
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.

hazlnut · Dec 14, 2009

Ethereal said:
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?

Dav · Dec 14, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
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.

Ethereal · Dec 14, 2009

hazlnut said:
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?

:roll:

Kushinator · Dec 14, 2009

Ethereal said:
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:2razz:

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.

hazlnut · Dec 15, 2009

Ethereal said:
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:

Ethereal said:
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.

danarhea · Dec 16, 2009

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.

tjinta ibis · Dec 16, 2009

Ethereal said:
Capitalism and free enterprise, dirty words...

You mean like sex and no moral code?

Dav · Dec 16, 2009

tjinta ibis said:
You mean like sex and no moral code?

Yeah, because that's entirely relevant to the topic :roll:

p.s. if you actually knew Ethereal you wouldn't have said that....

Kandahar · Dec 16, 2009

Redress said:
Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House - Yahoo! News

Not sure what to make of this. I think reforms need to be made in this area, but I don't know enough on the topic to know if these are the right reforms.

I think they're right to want to break up "too big to fail" companies, or at least put a cap on the amount of liabilities they can hold. Capping their liabilities would reduce the systemic risk to our economy of individual companies going bust. It's really the most sensible option that I can see. Allowing them to go bankrupt would create a domino effect that could lead to economic disaster, whereas constantly bailing them out isn't fair to the taxpayers and it isn't good for the budget when there are other (cheaper) alternatives available.

However, the bill is also trying to dilute the Fed's power...and I don't like that at all. The Federal Reserve should remain the way it is for the most part; I shutter at the thought of Congress trying to micromanage monetary policy. I have much more confidence in independent technocrats, than I do in partisan hacks in Congress who don't even know what a demand curve is.

Hatuey · Dec 16, 2009

Dav said:
I suspect that the recession wouldn't have become such a crisis if we had just let bad companies die and not had the government come in to "save" the day.

Who would have replaced the millions of jobs those companies provide in America? I'll give you a hint. Nobody. The 'big' companies collapsing doesn't only have economic ramifications it has social ones too. What happens if GM entirely collapses? Ford? What happens to the millions of people who's livelihoods are almost entirely dependent on these companies? Please explain that in detail. I'd rather the government give those companies a hand than watch millions more depend on welfare programs because economic conservatives are still masturbating to the empty words of Reagan.

Renae · Dec 17, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
Do you think there should be any reforms of our financial system, seeing the failures that culminated last year?

Seeing as most of the problems were the fault of the Government to begin with, having them "reform" the system fails to inspire.

Ethereal · Dec 17, 2009

tjinta ibis said:
You mean like sex and no moral code?

I'm not sure I understand.

danarhea · Dec 17, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Seeing as most of the problems were the fault of the Government to begin with, having them "reform" the system fails to inspire.

^^^
That man gets it.

It's like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

the makeout hobo · Dec 17, 2009

How was the government responsible for Adjustable Rate Mortgages? Or subprime lending?

Vader · Dec 17, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
How was the government responsible for Adjustable Rate Mortgages? Or subprime lending?

The Reiche-wing is responsible for removing key regulation that would have prevented it from occurring.

Erod · Dec 17, 2009

Vader said:
The Reiche-wing is responsible for removing key regulation that would have prevented it from occurring.

....led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Dav · Dec 17, 2009

Kandahar said:
However, the bill is also trying to dilute the Fed's power...and I don't like that at all. The Federal Reserve should remain the way it is for the most part; I shutter at the thought of Congress trying to micromanage monetary policy. I have much more confidence in independent technocrats, than I do in partisan hacks in Congress who don't even know what a demand curve is.

Yes, what we need is an elite class of political guardians who watch over the stupid masses and protect them from themselves :roll:

Hatuey said:
Who would have replaced the millions of jobs those companies provide in America? I'll give you a hint. Nobody. The 'big' companies collapsing doesn't only have economic ramifications it has social ones too. What happens if GM entirely collapses? Ford? What happens to the millions of people who's livelihoods are almost entirely dependent on these companies? Please explain that in detail. I'd rather the government give those companies a hand than watch millions more depend on welfare programs because economic conservatives are still masturbating to the empty words of Reagan.

Well, they basically are on welfare as it is, so I don't see how it could be worse.

One possible scenario is that a bigger, more competent company would just buy them up. And if not, eventually more jobs would rise up to replace the old ones (and it's not like the same people are always unemployed at the same time, so I'm not saying that the specific people who worked in Detroid would have to wait for said new jobs). Both of those options are better, in my mind, than rewarding incompetence. Why was nobody calling for a bailout of Enron? Lots of people lost their jobs over that.

Also, I'm not sure how anyone can defend what happened to GM. That the Federal government nationalized a freaking car company sets a horrible precedent. Nor am I sure how anyone can defend the initial bailout, which was voted down by Congress and which most people were against.

Kandahar · Dec 17, 2009

Dav said:
Yes, what we need is an elite class of political guardians who watch over the stupid masses and protect them from themselves :roll:

Exactly right. Can you imagine a congressman going home to campaign to his constituents, promising to lower/raise the interest rate? Ughhh. Congressmen know nothing about monetary policy, the voters know nothing about monetary policy, yet somehow they all think they're qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

Dav · Dec 17, 2009

Kandahar said:
Exactly right. Can you imagine a congressman going home to campaign to his constituents, promising to lower/raise the interest rate? Ughhh. Congressmen know nothing about monetary policy, the voters know nothing about monetary policy, yet somehow they all think they're qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

You have already stated your view about how stupid you think most people are in another thread (where you supported the findings of a poll which has since been proven fraudulent), so we are working from different premises here. Anyways, if there's one thing I detest, it's elitism.

Think of it like this: In a war, it is usually the generals making the tactical decisions; however, the President has the power to step in wherever he wants to make his own decisions, and the Generals must listen to him. That's the kind of relationship that the Fed and Congress should have. I'm not saying that Congress should be making all the decisions, but they should ultimately have total power over the Fed. Incidentally, the Constitution is pretty clear about who has the power to coin money.

Ethereal · Dec 17, 2009

Kandahar said:
Exactly right. Can you imagine a congressman going home to campaign to his constituents, promising to lower/raise the interest rate? Ughhh. Congressmen know nothing about monetary policy, the voters know nothing about monetary policy, yet somehow they all think they're qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

Why can't we let the market set interest rates?

Who said anything about the Congress being able set interest rates?

Kushinator · Dec 17, 2009

Ethereal said:
Why can't we let the market set interest rates?

How do you propose we do this?

Ethereal · Dec 17, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
How do you propose we do this?

Market forces, which can only exist if the Fed's plenary influence over credit conditions is restricted or redefined in some way.

Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

Dav

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World

Ethereal

hazlnut

Dav

Ethereal

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

hazlnut

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

tjinta ibis

Dav

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Renae

Ethereal

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World

Vader

Erod

Dav

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Dav

Ethereal

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Ethereal