Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


John~Galt last won the day on August 20 2010

John~Galt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 The F'n Man!

About John~Galt

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. [quote name='sois' timestamp='1288882691' post='937250'] Being white is cool. [/quote] You know that coach Leach hates white people right?
  2. [quote name='Elflocko' date='10 February 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1265824289' post='862498'] Sorry, tinge of sarcasm lost on that one. (Gotta stop posting before coffee...) But we do need to find a middle ground between "The markets are perfect and can monitor themselves!!!!" and "Someone dig up Chairman Mao!!!!!!" **Edit** But I do have a question for you, just to get a better understanding of your stance on the topic: What level of regulation do you feel is appropriate? Do you feel [b]any[/b] level is appropriate, or do you believe that there should be no regulation that interferes with a corporation's ability to be profitable? Something in between? [/quote] No problem. I am a bit slow on the uptake today myself. Ideally I would be all for a completely free market. This is clearly not a possibility in this or any political atmosphere so I would be in favor of limited regulations. I think government should limit its role to fostering an economic environment conducive to success for individuals and businesses. I am against bailouts of any kind. If GM allows itself to be cannibalized by a union GM should go under. The same goes for banks, airlines, and any other business. I do think the FDIC is a good idea but could be handled privately just like any other type of insurance. I think consumer education needs to be improved. A lot of the bad decisions made by consumers could have been addressed if they had an understanding of basic economics. We do not even teach people how to balance a checkbook in schools any more. No wonder the average American is paying 42% of their income to debtors.
  3. [quote name='Elflocko' date='10 February 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1265812901' post='862482'] If you still think that regulation is pure evil and an affront to Jesus himself after listening to [b]that[/b], you're a hopeless fanboi (said not to anyone in particular, but everyone in general). [/quote] Wow. So if anyone dares to disagree with your viewpoint no matter how reasoned or logical their argument is it must be that they are idiots or political fan boys. You could run for congress.
  4. Why would you even consider signing a contract you can't understand? Why would you allow yourself to be preyed upon by a lender? If people made better more informed decisions these kinds of companies would not exist. That is the real rub for me. This was brought on by people making poor decisions. If the government rides to the rescue every time someone makes a poor decision they will keep repeating the same poor decisions. As for the commodities market, if you have buyers and sellers they should be able to transact business. It's their money. If they want to toss it away it is their right to do so. [quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 February 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1265687944' post='862251'] There is personal responsibility and there is making the language of the loans so difficult to understand by the borrower (not to mention the predatory loans). There was alot of blame on all sides to go around. But none of that addresses a gambling economy like the commodities market that imo shouldnt exist. [/quote]
  5. [quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 February 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1265683018' post='862240'] Most of the irresponsible landing wasnt happening through the CRA. http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/policy-legislation/congress/cra-not-to-blame-for-crisis.pdf A goverment power grab that didnt have to happen if things werent deregulated to allow the bad behavior to even take place. [/quote] For the sake of argument let's assume for a second that the report you linked to is accurate. It still comes down to people taking responsibility for themselves on both sides of the issue. Irresponsible lenders made their own beds along side irresponsible borrowers. Due diligence on both sides would have prevented the issue in the first place. It is the responsibility of the participants in the transaction not the responsibility of government. I think we differ on a more fundamental level than sub prime lending, accounting practices and the economic meltdown. It is a question of the role of government. I believe government should be as limited as possible. I also believe that the expanding role of government undermines personal responsibility to the point that it is debilitating to individuals. I appreciate a spirited debate and I have enjoyed this one. It is pretty clear that neither of us is going to win the other one over, but it was fun nonetheless.
  6. [quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 February 2010 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1265605520' post='862016'] Not arrogant, frustrated. CRA had nothing to do with it. The data is out there if your willing to do the work. And I'm not arguing about the let them fail aspect of this, I'm arguing the removal of the regulations that let them become "too big to fail." We could have survived this if Glass-Stegal was still in place. Edit: And as far as the airlines, deregulation caused their behavior as well. You keep looking at the result and not the causes. [/quote] CRA had a lot to do with it. I know the information. It is my line of business. The fact is that data can be spun any way you want it to be. All the political posturing and arguing will never change the fact that personal responsibility and due diligence is much better insurance than some government power grab.
  7. [quote name='Squirrlnutz' date='08 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1265657389' post='862137'] For accuracy I'll add: ...will fizzle out with tens of billions of dollars in the board members' pockets and leave thousands unemployed. Fizzling out is taken too lightly. Would you really care if your corporation failed after you banked 18 billion dollars? I wouldn't fucking care, I would be fine, because I was thinking about ME throughout the whole process and not the market or the thousands of people I employ. [/quote] I would not have to care. I do my homework. It is the job of the shareholders to make sure this does not happen. Again the government steps in to make up for the mistakes of negligent shareholders. Where is the personal responsibility? Reading an income statement and a statement of cash flows is not that difficult even for a lay person. If the shareholders were actually reviewing financials rather than just assuming things were fine this mess could have been avoided. If I am the shareholder of a company with my money at risk you better believe my due diligence is done. If the CEO or CFO is playing games and bankrolling himself with corporation funds I point it out and we vote them out. Again though, we can be lazy because the government will come along and force the tax payer to bail us out. Even in the case of Enron, if the preferred stockholders had done their homework they could have blown the whistle long before the money was out the door. Arthur Anderson would have gone down anyway because their reputation would have been shot.
  8. [quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1265575796' post='861976'] and that's the beauty of that quote, that it takes what i have been arguing about form months in this forum and wraps it all up into one nice neat little package. The only active role the government took in creating the mortgage crisis is loosing the rules for loans and the mortgage crisis, while not unrelated, was small potatoes compared to the commodities crisis. When the government took a hands off well let you banks act in whatever way you wish and take the rules away so you can. You see what you got. Your viewpoint is not surprising to me given your username, but it is dead wrong. [/quote] It takes a pretty arrogant person to call someone else dead wrong on such a complicated issue. As for the mortgage crisis, the federal government changed the rules to make mortgage lenders take on more risk in the name of social engineering. If banks make poor decisions let them fail. These banks KNEW the fed would bail them out. AIG knew it, Bank of America knew it and so did every other bank that took bailout cash. The airlines have known it for years as well. Why compete and maintain a strong ethical safe company when uncle sam will come along and clean things up for you? Take away the consequences of poor behavior and you get poor behavior. It is really that simple. To make matters worse the government even helped it along with the Sarbanes-Oxley mark to market provision. They then swoop in and nationalize half the banking industry and a good portion of the auto industry. With the feds refusing to take back bailout money from certain banks it becomes clear that there is a hidden agenda here. A huge federal power grab is the last thing we need.
  9. [quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 February 2010 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1265537838' post='861886'] "Where there is no moral framework, no ethical sensibility, the market ends up devouring all other sectors, and then devours itself."--Adam Smith Works like gangbusters. [/quote] I can toss out quotes too, but I prefer to form my own opinions rather than espouse the opinions of others. A truly free market would be governed by one principle: Rational self interest. It is not in the interest of participants in any market to engage in unethical or destructive behavior. Those that do will fizzle out while the fundamentally sound participants will continue to grow and prosper. The market place is made up of consumers and producers. The consumer will eventually punish producers that fail to compete with other producers or engage in unethical, self-destructive behavior. (See General Motors) Government bureaucracy by nature seeks only to preserve itself. These "representatives" make decisions and regulations from a purely CYA view point. This government proceeds to destroy the dollar, actively take part in creating a mortgage crisis, stifle progress and creativity then have the audacity to tell us that the problems in this country stem from corporate greed and Wall Street avarice.
  10. [quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1265517203' post='861881'] Of course they do, that is the purpose of regulation. [/quote] It isn't theirs to regulate. Doing it by force does not make it right or constitutional. The market works if government stops meddling in it.
  11. If company's make such stupid mistakes LET THEM FAIL. They make these mistakes because they know uncle sam will come along and clean up the mess. I don't get a bailout nor does Washington have the right to dictate how I do business and government has no right to dictate to anyone how they run their business. A bunch of congressman do not know more about business than the people that actually found and grow these companies. Take away the tax payer funded safety net and let them sink or swim. If they know they will be allowed to sink they will do the right thing. If not, they can and will fail as they should.
  • Create New...