• 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!

The Need For Regulating Markets

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I can pretty much agree with Eliot Spitzer

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/spitzer-talk-0428.html

I thought, ‘We will finally have that epiphany that will bring us back, we will embrace rational policy once again.’ And here we are two years later, and I’m thinking: ‘What happened? How can this possibly be? Didn’t people learn a lesson?’ … I’m afraid to say the answer is no, they didn’t.”
Click to expand...
 
Markets are self-regulating, no need for the government to stick its nose in.

That doesn't mean fraud isn't a crime, or that other practices can be construed as dishonest and thus limited by law. What it does mean is that the government should not attempt to implement regulations for no other reason than influencing the market itself.

The market was well on it's way to regulating AIG. The government's interference was improper and harmful.

The market was well on it's way to regulating GM. The government's interference was excessively illegal, partisan, and wasteful. The Mayor will never again by a GM vehicle as a result.

The market is excessively regulated in the commodities of marijuana, cocaine, and crystal meth. So regulated, in fact, that participants in the market face prison time if caught. This, of course, drives the price up and encourages all sorts of criminal activity, not to mention the extreme waste of tax payer dollars to deny taxpayers their freedom to put stupid things in their body.
 
The market, when left unregulated, goes into exaggerated boom/bust cycles, where the bust portion of the cycle can lead to a recession or a full-blown depression. That's just basic economics.
 
TheBook said:
The market, when left unregulated, goes into exaggerated boom/bust cycles, where the bust portion of the cycle can lead to a recession or a full-blown depression. That's just basic economics.
Click to expand...

Oh. You must mean like when the market created the Great Depression, right?

Wait. The Federal Reserve created the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional arm of the federal government.

So much for that one.

OH! The Mayor bets your referring to the Great Recession.

Wait. The Great Recession is the inevitable cancer resulting from the inhalation of the New Deal, the imposition of unconstitutional government mortgage guarantees, the mucking about and overregulations of markets and the ensuing complexities as people attempted to sort out how to make money in the jungle of regulations.

So much for your suggestion.

cycles are part of life, government always makes life harder.
 
We are fools if we do not follow through and re-regulate the markets!
 
Catawba said:
We are fools if we do not follow through and re-regulate the markets!
Click to expand...

We probably already have enough regulations on the books, what is needed is harsh penalties for betrayal of public trust.
We have the RICO act....
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SummaryUnder RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect triple damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]

Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of triple damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[4]

[edit] RICO offensesUnder the law, racketeering activity means:

Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Oh. You must mean like when the market created the Great Depression, right?

Wait. The Federal Reserve created the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional arm of the federal government.

So much for that one.

OH! The Mayor bets your referring to the Great Recession.

Wait. The Great Recession is the inevitable cancer resulting from the inhalation of the New Deal, the imposition of unconstitutional government mortgage guarantees, the mucking about and overregulations of markets and the ensuing complexities as people attempted to sort out how to make money in the jungle of regulations.

So much for your suggestion.

cycles are part of life, government always makes life harder.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve was hardly the only cause of the Great Depression. We had the great "taking in loans from American banks to pay off loans to American banks" phase, the production of more goods than people were able to purchase (due to extreme wealth disparity), etc.

Trying to point to one simple factor and claim it was the only cause of the Great Depression is a simplistic and fallacious argument.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I can pretty much agree with Eliot Spitzer

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/spitzer-talk-0428.html
Click to expand...

I need not say to much. I oppose regulation of the market that creates a bloated government & is paid by unregulated taxpayers, not the regulated. We have a US court system, and a laxed consumerism for anyone harmed by no regulations. Make consumers responsible for their own well being. Let those harmed benefit from a lawsuit, not the government.
 
Last edited:
No need for more regulation. We need less regulation and give that extra money to the people who drive the economy. Regulation causes a chain reaction of in-balancing issues... requiring more and more. The governments job is just to inform the public about products and the market, NOT tell it how. Ingredient facts, safety, and legitimacy checks are what is needed and !Nothing! else. Business has a right to make an unsafe product, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the liberty of people who wish to avoid it, and as long as the government informs the people of whats standards the product did not pass.
 
UtahBill said:
We probably already have enough regulations on the books, what is needed is harsh penalties for betrayal of public trust.
We have the RICO act....
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SummaryUnder RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect triple damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]

Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of triple damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."[4]

[edit] RICO offensesUnder the law, racketeering activity means:

Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
Click to expand...

Mar 2 2011

"Federal financial regulations protect investors from financial risk and fraud. Since the 1980's, however, the trend has been deregulation to unfetter U.S. banks to compete globally. Foreign countries blame lax U.S. financial regulations for the global credit crisis. In November 2008, the G-20 called on Washington to increase regulation of hedge funds and other financial firms. (See U.S. Resists G-20 Summit Call)

On May 20, 2010, the Senate approved its version of the Bank Reform Bill.It sets up a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to be under the Federal Reserve. It gives regulators the authority to split up large banks so they don't become "too big to fail." It eliminates loopholes for hedge funds, derivatives and mortgage brokers. Known as the "Volcker Rule," it bans Wall Street banks from owning hedge funds. It gives states the right to regulate banks, overriding Federal regulations if needed to protect the public. It also suggests an independent agency that has the authority to review systematic risks that would affect the entire financial industry. It reduces executive pay by allowing shareholders a non-binding vote.(For more detail on this complicated bill, see Bank Reform Bill).

Financial Regulations Proposed in 2009

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency was originally proposed in 2009. Banks lobbied against it, but may be mollified if it is under the Fed. The other proposals from 2009 are still in limbo:

* Bank regulations would be consolidated under a new National Bank Supervisor.
* Banks would have to increase their capital cushion.
* Issuers of products sold on the secondary market would have to keep at least 5% of the value of their products sold. They would have new reporting requirements, as well.
* Credit rating agencies, such as Standard & Poor's and Moody's, would face regulations designed to reduce conflict of interest."

(Source: Reuters, Financial Initiatives, June 17, 2009)
Financial Regulations - What Are Federal Banking Regulations - Will Regulations Prevent Another Financial Crisis
 
Last edited:
TheBook said:
The Federal Reserve was hardly the only cause of the Great Depression. We had the great "taking in loans from American banks to pay off loans to American banks" phase, the production of more goods than people were able to purchase (due to extreme wealth disparity), etc.

Trying to point to one simple factor and claim it was the only cause of the Great Depression is a simplistic and fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

The cause of the Depression was the sudden loss of liquidity in the nation's capital markets. This was caused because the Federal Reserve realized that it's decade long policy of too-easy credit was leading to an inflationary phase, and rather than gradually raising rates, they drastically raised rates, which led to margin calls on the stock exchange, and with all the people buying on margin, led to the infamous Rain of Stockbrokers. To exacerbate the problem and ensure that cash was in as short a supply as possible, the Federal Reserve flatly refused to do the one thing it was specifically constituted to do, loan money to banks to enable them to meet current cash demands.

The Federal Reserve thereby stole the life savings of millions of Americans.

No other single factor could have created the Depression. The other factors you noted could have only created a minor recession.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Markets are self-regulating, no need for the government to stick its nose in.

That doesn't mean fraud isn't a crime, or that other practices can be construed as dishonest and thus limited by law. What it does mean is that the government should not attempt to implement regulations for no other reason than influencing the market itself.

The market was well on it's way to regulating AIG. The government's interference was improper and harmful.

The market was well on it's way to regulating GM. The government's interference was excessively illegal, partisan, and wasteful. The Mayor will never again by a GM vehicle as a result.

The market is excessively regulated in the commodities of marijuana, cocaine, and crystal meth. So regulated, in fact, that participants in the market face prison time if caught. This, of course, drives the price up and encourages all sorts of criminal activity, not to mention the extreme waste of tax payer dollars to deny taxpayers their freedom to put stupid things in their body.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, self regulating, where we can have child slave labor, shirtwaist factory fires that kill hundreds of people at a time, carnival barker medicines that contain poison, trusts that fixed prices until Theodore Roosevelt broke them, chemical companies like the one in Bhopal, Pinkertons to fire on and mow down protesters, banksters who gave comfort to Nazis, and other enemies of America that killed our own soldiers with the aid they received, and at least a thousand and one more results of foxes guarding henhouses.

Human nature being what it is, you don't want to have the foxes guarding the henhouses. Now there might be a valid debate as to how much regulation is needed, but we already went through the 1890's and similar periods in history, and we don't need those times again. Any reasonable and sane person can conclude, based on past history with unregulated markets, that a certain amount of regulation is going to be needed. If markets cannot be responsible for what they do when unregulated, then they certainly do not deserve deregulation. Again, it all boils down to human nature, and human nature is directly responsible for just about ALL of the darkest periods of American and World history.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Ahh yes, self regulating, where we can have child slave labor,
Click to expand...

Yes, we're all perfectly aware that people exist who cannot discuss issues rationally and have to defend their socialist positions with fantasy.

In fact, all socialists have to do that.

Do you have to lead the charge?

The Great Depression and the Great Recession are two examples of the failure of over-regulation. That's called history, you can't change it.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes, we're all perfectly aware that people exist who cannot discuss issues rationally and have to defend their socialist positions with fantasy.

In fact, all socialists have to do that.

Do you have to lead the charge?

The Great Depression and the Great Recession are two examples of the failure of over-regulation. That's called history, you can't change it.
Click to expand...

Over regulation caused them? what do you mix with your koolaid? That is the most stupid thing the mayor has come up with yet.
What history books do you read to come up with this kind of stuff?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Oh. You must mean like when the market created the Great Depression, right?

Wait. The Federal Reserve created the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional arm of the federal government.

So much for that one.

OH! The Mayor bets your referring to the Great Recession.

Wait. The Great Recession is the inevitable cancer resulting from the inhalation of the New Deal, the imposition of unconstitutional government mortgage guarantees, the mucking about and overregulations of markets and the ensuing complexities as people attempted to sort out how to make money in the jungle of regulations.

So much for your suggestion.

cycles are part of life, government always makes life harder.
Click to expand...
When the stock market crashed in 1929, the income tax rate was at 24%, the rich used the money to speculate on the stock market on margin. The lack of regulations and easy money was the cause of the Great Depression.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes, we're all perfectly aware that people exist who cannot discuss issues rationally and have to defend their socialist positions with fantasy.

In fact, all socialists have to do that.

Do you have to lead the charge?

The Great Depression and the Great Recession are two examples of the failure of over-regulation. That's called history, you can't change it.
Click to expand...

Actually all of Dana's examples are accurate ones, no need for fantasy to show evidence of the terrible things "the market" can do if left unchecked.
 
TheBook said:
Actually all of Dana's examples are accurate ones, no need for fantasy to show evidence of the terrible things "the market" can do if left unchecked.
Click to expand...

Who knew there were any smart people in Texas?
 
Quote from the article: "First, he offered, “Only government can enforce rules of integrity, transparency and fair dealing in the marketplace. Private-sector companies simply can’t do it.”

He is joking, isn't he? Who are the only Americans permitted to engage in insider trading? Oh, right, congressmen and their aides. Transparency? Now that is a joke. It take President Obama 2.5 years to find a birth certificate and he's still concealing records. He accepts an award for transparency in secret. Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd were transparent? Get serious.

And, for the federal government and it's politicians fair dealing is whatever you can get away with. Fair dealing with Boeing in South Carolina? Not hardly. One of the few honest statements from President Obama was, "We reward our friends and punish our enemies." That's fair dealing the Chicago way.

Eliot Spitzer was obviously just referring to the marketplace for hookers. If the federal government had been in control his hookers would have kept their mouths shut.
 
Catawba said:
We are fools if we do not follow through and re-regulate the markets!
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the Dems have been doing for the past 4 years? How's that working out for you?
 
danarhea said:
Ahh yes, self regulating, where we can have child slave labor, shirtwaist factory fires that kill hundreds of people at a time, carnival barker medicines that contain poison, trusts that fixed prices until Theodore Roosevelt broke them, chemical companies like the one in Bhopal, Pinkertons to fire on and mow down protesters, banksters who gave comfort to Nazis, and other enemies of America that killed our own soldiers with the aid they received, and at least a thousand and one more results of foxes guarding henhouses.

Human nature being what it is, you don't want to have the foxes guarding the henhouses. Now there might be a valid debate as to how much regulation is needed, but we already went through the 1890's and similar periods in history, and we don't need those times again. Any reasonable and sane person can conclude, based on past history with unregulated markets, that a certain amount of regulation is going to be needed. If markets cannot be responsible for what they do when unregulated, then they certainly do not deserve deregulation. Again, it all boils down to human nature, and human nature is directly responsible for just about ALL of the darkest periods of American and World history.
Click to expand...

Versus over-regulated, where no one has a job and none of these bad things can happen.

Invision a world where an 18 y/o enters the job market, with zero skills, or work experience and is expected to have a perfect work ethic. That's the utopia that Libbos always go on about. The utopia where the welfare class grows larger and larger every year.

banksters who gave comfort to Nazis, and other enemies of America that killed our own soldiers with the aid they received
Click to expand...

BTW, this isn't historically accurate. You may want to revise your post.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
I can pretty much agree with Eliot Spitzer

The visible hand
Click to expand...

If you want information on the best hookers in New York.........client #9 is clearly the authoritative voice in those matters..........but not so much when it comes to regulation.

.......saying we need more regulation is akin to saying we need more government........we dont......

We need smaller more effective government/regulations...........if any at all........
.
.
.
.
 
apdst said:
Versus over-regulated, where no one has a job and none of these bad things can happen.

Invision a world where an 18 y/o enters the job market, with zero skills, or work experience and is expected to have a perfect work ethic. That's the utopia that Libbos always go on about. The utopia where the welfare class grows larger and larger every year.

.
Click to expand...

And in the ideal Conservative world, that person would have already been in the workforce for 10 years.

I don't really believe that, but I love how ridiculous Conservatives sound talking about what liberals or Democrats think. Your hatred is so blind there is no reason behind it.
 
Patrickt said:
Quote from the article: "First, he offered, “Only government can enforce rules of integrity, transparency and fair dealing in the marketplace. Private-sector companies simply can’t do it.”

He is joking, isn't he? Who are the only Americans permitted to engage in insider trading? Oh, right, congressmen and their aides. Transparency? Now that is a joke. It take President Obama 2.5 years to find a birth certificate and he's still concealing records. He accepts an award for transparency in secret. Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd were transparent? Get serious.

And, for the federal government and it's politicians fair dealing is whatever you can get away with. Fair dealing with Boeing in South Carolina? Not hardly. One of the few honest statements from President Obama was, "We reward our friends and punish our enemies." That's fair dealing the Chicago way.

Eliot Spitzer was obviously just referring to the marketplace for hookers. If the federal government had been in control his hookers would have kept their mouths shut.
Click to expand...

You got part of it nailed....
Ethics 101 should not be an elective course....it should be required of every elected or appointed politician or public official every 4 years. Likewise every person involved in the handling of other peoples money, from brokers on up.
Betray the public trust, and you go to jail....screw a person out of his pension, whipping post and go to jail.....molest a child, removal of your happy parts and go to jail.
 
Regulation is fine, excessive however we've seen first hand what it will do to business and jobs, goodbye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom