When you have a government playing favorites by decreeing regulation on some and not regulation on others problems arise. The market will respond. I submit that very little regulation is preferable to limit the power of lobbyists and stricter oversight by regulatory entities is the answer. You and I have been down this path of links to support our views before and it doesn't change either one of our views. I can easily see where lack of oversight of good regulation has been a problem. Do you also see how incoherent and wrong headed regulation is also a problem that creates more issues then it solves? Such as the energy Cap'n Trade nonsense which has hopefully been squashed by Repubs new filibuster capabilities. One can hope.
dj On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:17 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “Some regulation is required but over regulation brings it's own set > of problems…” – DJ > > Specifically, what problems have over regulation brought to the USA? > Presumably, these problems would be at least as dire as the result of > deregulation. > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#ambig_assertion > > > “Finding a balance is difficult and the more regulation you have the > harder it is to keep track.” – DJ > > Surely you aren’t suggesting that legal complexity is the problem > here, are you? > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity > > > “A few simple rules that are ENFORCED and an active and vigilant SEC > are what we need.” – DJ > > Specifically which ‘simple rules’ are you proposing Don? And, I agree > that enforcement is a big issue. Unfortunately all too often political > ideology enters into the picture rather than more objective analysis. > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#ambig_assertion > > > “… I assume you are referring to Clinton's Financial Services > Modernization Act of 1999.” – DJ > > Not specifically. While it is all linked together, most of the recent > stuff started with RR’s signing into law of the Garn–St. Germain > Depository Institutions Act of 1982. > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize > > > “I agree this sweeping removal of regulation was probably a mistake.” > – DJ > > Good, I’m glad we agree that deregulation was the problem. > > “... As usual, the government is the problem, not the solution. ..” – > DJ > > Well, it is very easy to quote Ronnie’s one liners, isn’t it? :-) Too > bad such ideological propaganda is used to influence thinking rather > than facts. > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan > > > “No use crying over spilt capital now. Lets take the lessons learned > and do whats right to go forward. Not throw the baby out with the > bath water.” – DJ > > You left out “The good lord willing and the creeks don’t rise.” > Don! ;-) > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#slogan > > > On Feb 8, 9:47 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > “…In a free market you can shop >> > for the right loan. In a heavily regulated industry you get banks >> > that are "too big to fail."” – DJ >> >> > Perhaps my memory fails…I was *sure* that the recent banking situation >> > occurred *after* years of deregulation… >> >> Some regulation is required but over regulation brings it's own set of >> problems. Finding a balance is difficult and the more regulation you >> have the harder it is to keep track. A few simple rules that are >> ENFORCED and an active and vigilant SEC are what we need. I assume you >> are referring to Clinton's Financial Services Modernization Act of >> 1999. I agree this sweeping removal of regulation was probably a >> mistake. A gradual tweaking would have made more sense but Dems >> prefer total make-overs it seems. Stubborn Democrats like Barney >> Frank fought against regulation for Fannie and Freddie GSE's that >> could have prevented the meltdown. Bush could have pushed harder but >> was distracted by the wars. These two GSE's and Ginnie Mae are huge >> issues in the real estate meltdown that probably wouldn't have >> happened(as badly) if these 3 entities weren't supported and backed by >> the government. As usual, the government is the problem, not the >> solution. >> >> No use crying over spilt capital now. Lets take the lessons learned >> and do whats right to go forward. Not throw the baby out with the >> bath water. >> >> dj >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 8, 7:00 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> They still get their pound of flesh. The bank buys the property and >> >> then rolls all the customary fees and interest and taxes into a new >> >> selling price for the buyer. And since the buyer is now unable to >> >> take the customary mortgage payers deductions they get screwed another >> >> way. Foolish. Like so many other religious tenets there was probably >> >> a good reason for doing this a thousand years ago. Just like there >> >> was probably a good reason for not eating pork. Those reasons don't >> >> exist in the civilized world anymore. In a free market you can shop >> >> for the right loan. In a heavily regulated industry you get banks >> >> that are "too big to fail." >> >> >> dj >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Pat <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > On 3 Feb, 16:35, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> This sorta stuff is getting our of hand isn't it? >> >> >> >> I mean this culture of blame, okay we can certianly blame the banks >> >> >> for the world wide finacial situation we are currently in, but can we >> >> >> really blame any politician for not solving the problems quickly >> >> >> enough? >> >> >> >> Shit even if Mr Cameron comes to power over here I still just couldn't >> >> >> put blame on him for not sorting out this mess. I don't how to sort >> >> >> it, do any of you? >> >> >> > Yup. Islamic banking! And I mean Islamic banking WITHOUT all the >> >> > loopholes that people, lately, have brought into it. The current >> >> > banking problems simply would not have been possible. Think of a >> >> > world without institutionalised usury that constantly preys upon those >> >> > with little or no money by charging them even more. Of course Islamic >> >> > banking isn't in concord with capitalism and that means that greedy- >> >> > arsed money-grubbers won't like it. Tough, I say!! >> >> >> >> On 3 Feb, 15:20, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > There have been many articles about homeowners just walking away from >> >> >> > their mortgages because of the depressed value versus their payments, >> >> >> > insurance, taxes, etc. Obama will not be able to solve this one and >> >> >> > he >> >> >> > and his administration have made the situation catastrophic for the >> >> >> > present and future. Contract law is becoming a joke as people feel >> >> >> > free to do as they please and they feel justified by pointing to >> >> >> > scandals that make the news. >> >> >> >> > On Feb 3, 7:55 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > I believe Obama was successful in getting info from the Swiss banks >> >> >> > > themselves, or so the press here reported. Perhaps the German >> >> >> > > government might be successful in getting this information from the >> >> >> > > banks. >> >> >> >> > > On Feb 2, 9:10 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > No morals involved Francis. We do people for pennies in benefit >> >> >> > > > fraud >> >> >> > > > on the basis of information from much slimier sources. The only >> >> >> > > > questions are about how to agree how to pay the informant. >> >> >> >> > > > On 2 Feb, 17:13, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > I think that perhaps Fran this is actualy a much larger >> >> >> > > > > question than >> >> >> > > > > at first percived to be. >> >> >> >> > > > > What actions should a goverment take in the running of the >> >> >> > > > > country? >> >> >> >> > > > > I think that any goverment has it's own share of 'wet' and >> >> >> > > > > 'black' >> >> >> > > > > work going on don't you? I also think that thye majority of us >> >> >> > > > > understand the necisity of such work, and so cannot in all god >> >> >> > > > > conciousness complain over much about such dubiouse morality. >> >> >> >> > > > > So when measured against this, and in these chaotic finacial >> >> >> > > > > times, >> >> >> > > > > then perhaps theft can also be forgiven? >> >> >> >> > > > > Well like most things I guess we need to look at specifics, but >> >> >> > > > > personaly I'm going to have to say on this one, that at times >> >> >> > > > > any >> >> >> > > > > goverment is bound to act imorraly for the benifit of the >> >> >> > > > > country, and >> >> >> > > > > in all probabilty this being the case we have to deem such >> >> >> > > > > actions as >> >> >> > > > > exceptable. >> >> >> >> > > > > On 2 Feb, 16:59, frantheman <[email protected]> >> >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > > The German government has been offered a CD containing data >> >> >> > > > > > concerning around 1,500 bank accounts in Switzerland where >> >> >> > > > > > money has >> >> >> > > > > > been squirreled away by Germans to avoid paying tax in >> >> >> > > > > > Germany. The >> >> >> > > > > > data was stolen. The asking price for the CD is € 2.5 >> >> >> > > > > > million. The >> >> >> > > > > > information is estimated to be worth around € 100 million to >> >> >> > > > > > the >> >> >> > > > > > German tax authorities. >> >> >> >> > > > > > The Swiss are, predictably, incandescent. Personally, as >> >> >> > > > > > someone who >> >> >> > > > > > pays taxes in Germany, I don't have much sympathy with those >> >> >> > > > > > rich >> >> >> > > > > > enough to avoid paying their taxes by trying to hide money >> >> >> > > > > > in other >> >> >> > > > > > countries and taking a hit for doing so. On the other hand, >> >> >> > > > > > there is >> >> >> > > > > > no doubt that the German government is giving a signal that >> >> >> > > > > > certain >> >> >> > > > > > kinds of crime pay, as long as the return from other >> >> >> > > > > > criminals (rich >> >> >> > > > > > tax dodgers) is big enough. In one sense, the government is >> >> >> > > > > > undoubtedly guilty of the crime of knowingly receiving >> >> >> > > > > > stolen goods. >> >> >> > > > > > Should they do it? >> >> >> >> > > > > >http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,675371,00.html >> >> >> >> > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >> > -- >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> >> > Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >> >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> > [email protected]. >> >> > For more options, visit this group >> >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > ""Minds Eye"" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit this group >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
