Jamie_B Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351614382' post='1175612'] I'd like for them to take that piece of legislation and just repeal it. And start over. I agree on breaking them up, re-institute Glass-Steagall, banks get smaller and "can fail" at that point. Certain aspects of Dodd-Frank make sense and the bill is well-intentioned... however, the bill is heavy-handed to the wrong people and [color=#ff0000]unfairly punishes those that weren't the original problem.[/color] [/quote] See I think if you dont treat everyone the same and regulate these products the same across the board your going to get people finding loopholes in the system to exploit it in similar fashions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351614616' post='1175614'] See I think if you dont treat everyone the same and regulate these products the same across the board your going to get people finding loopholes in the system to exploit it in similar fashions. [/quote] I understand what you're saying... I'm simply speaking from the standpoint of being in this industry. The act was meant to put measures on big banks and a by product was all the smaller banks, community banks, and credit unions felt that huge regulatory burden and had no hand in the original problem. That, and the stupid paperwork that has to be handed to people that don't read it anymore than they did previously... just a waste of time and money. Again, the intention is good - the delivery is the big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351614616' post='1175614'] See I think if you dont treat everyone the same and regulate these products the same across the board your going to get people finding loopholes in the system to exploit it in similar fashions. [/quote] Jamie that is a universal statement that can be applied to almost anything. Anytime someone abuses a program and new rules are put in place, it not only effects the people abusing the program, but everyone else that the program was intended for. For example, passenger used to go through a simple metal detectored minutes after arriving to the airport. They would slide their bag through the scanner and walk to the gate for their flight. 30 minutes tops for the whole process. Now because of the idiots of 9/11 and subsequent attempts for terrorism, You need an act of congress to get on a plane. You will spend sometimes 2 hours from the time you walk in the airport, until the time you reach your fright gate. This wasn't new rules put in place to make you spend more time at the businesses and bar at the airport, it was to stop terrorism, but effected everyone. That's just one example, there are many, many more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351624405' post='1175644'] Jamie that is a universal statement that can be applied to almost anything. Anytime someone abuses a program and new rules are put in place, it not only effects the people abusing the program, but everyone else that the program was intended for. For example, passenger used to go through a simple metal detectored minutes after arriving to the airport. They would slide their bag through the scanner and walk to the gate for their flight. 30 minutes tops for the whole process. Now because of the idiots of 9/11 and subsequent attempts for terrorism, You need an act of congress to get on a plane. You will spend sometimes 2 hours from the time you walk in the airport, until the time you reach your fright gate. This wasn't new rules put in place to make you spend more time at the businesses and bar at the airport, it was to stop terrorism, but effected everyone. That's just one example, there are many, many more. [/quote] No its a statement that recognizes how these crooks operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351677959' post='1175817'] No its a statement that recognizes how these crooks operate. [/quote] Exactly... key word being crooks. But all in the industry pay the price for the crook. Kind of like everyone getting searched at airports to catch the "crooks" but everyone here is good with that... Oh, wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351686069' post='1175831'] Exactly... key word being crooks. But all in the industry pay the price for the crook. Kind of like everyone getting searched at airports to catch the "crooks" but everyone here is good with that... Oh, wait. [/quote] That's exactly the point I was making though a little more concise and to the point. There will be always be that one bad apple that ruins the whole barrel. Soon enough there will be 20 page rules in place to be signed and notarized to buy a 5 way at Gold Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I wonder who this girl will choose. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-little-girl-cry-145605083--election.html Beware the video part of this ad may make you burst out in tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 hahahaah Bronco Bamma, that's a cool name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1351720502' post='1176014'] hahahaah Bronco Bamma, that's a cool name. [/quote] Sounds like it could be either a porn name or a rodeo rider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351686069' post='1175831'] Exactly... key word being crooks. But all in the industry pay the price for the crook. Kind of like everyone getting searched at airports to catch the "crooks" but everyone here is good with that... Oh, wait. [/quote] Kind of like business pushing up the price of their goods in order to build in for theft. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351732699' post='1176067'] Kind of like business pushing up the price of their goods in order to build in for theft. What's your point? [/quote] Are you trying to talk about price gauging? It's illegal. There were several gas stations in the south that were fined or shut down for raising the price of gas steeply during hurricane Katrina. Many places were also fined or shut down for overcharging on things like bottled water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I don't want to speak for Vol, but I think his argument, which I tend to agree with, is that reforms ought to address the ills which provoke those reforms and not place an undue burden on those other entities which are "along for the ride" so to speak. This is to me one of the weaknesses of Dodd/Frank. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it, too. That legislation was written in such a way as to preserve much of the structural edifice of current financial affairs, addressing only the egregiously evil stuff. A return to the principles of Glass-Steagall would have clearly (one hopes) separated the functions of commercial banking and merchant banking. This would also have the positive effect of not forcing smaller financial institutions (those which are classified as commercial) to follow regulations designed to address the merchant banking side of things. I know you more or less agree with all this, Jamie. My take is that Vol does, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351733223' post='1176071'] I don't want to speak for Vol, but I think his argument, which I tend to agree with, is that reforms ought to address the ills which provoke those reforms and not place an undue burden on those other entities which are "along for the ride" so to speak. This is to me one of the weaknesses of Dodd/Frank. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it, too. That legislation was written in such a way as to preserve much of the structural edifice of current financial affairs, addressing only the egregiously evil stuff. A return to the principles of Glass-Steagall would have clearly (one hopes) separated the functions of commercial banking and merchant banking. This would also have the positive effect of not forcing smaller financial institutions (those which are classified as commercial) to follow regulations designed to address the merchant banking side of things. I know you more or less agree with all this, Jamie. My take is that Vol does, too. [/quote] Once again that's such a simple argument. As part of the U.S., we are supposed to be treated equal, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If anything, the under dogs of the economy are given more benefits from government than the big businesses are. That wasn't the case with the Bank and Automotive bail outs, but during normal situations they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351733223' post='1176071'] I don't want to speak for Vol, but I think his argument, which I tend to agree with, is that reforms ought to address the ills which provoke those reforms and not place an undue burden on those other entities which are "along for the ride" so to speak. This is to me one of the weaknesses of Dodd/Frank. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it, too. That legislation was written in such a way as to preserve much of the structural edifice of current financial affairs, addressing only the egregiously evil stuff. A return to the principles of Glass-Steagall would have clearly (one hopes) separated the functions of commercial banking and merchant banking. This would also have the positive effect of not forcing smaller financial institutions (those which are classified as commercial) to follow regulations designed to address the merchant banking side of things. I know you more or less agree with all this, Jamie. My take is that Vol does, too. [/quote] Which trips me out what Obama said about Glass-Stegal in the recent Rolling Stone interview... [quote][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] [b]Forget for a moment about obstruction by Wall Street lobbyists and Republicans in Congress. If you could single-handedly enact one piece of regulation on the financial industry, what would it be?[/b] The story of Dodd-Frank is not yet complete, because the rules are still being developed. Dodd-Frank provided a platform to make sure that we end some of the most egregious practices and prevent another taxpayer-funded bailout. We've significantly increased capital requirements and essentially created a wind-down mechanism for institutions that make bad bets, so the whole system isn't held hostage to them going under. We have to make sure that the rules issued around the Volcker Rule are actually enforced. So there's a lot of good work that will be done around Dodd-Frank.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] I've looked at some of [i]Rolling Stone[/i]'s articles that say, "This didn't go far enough, we didn't institute Glass-Steagall" and so forth, and I pushed my economic team very hard on some of those questions. But there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] I will tell you, the single biggest thing that I would like to see is changing incentives on Wall Street and how people get compensated. That ultimately requires not just congressional legislation but a change in corporate governance. You still have a situation where people making bets can get a huge upside, and their downsides are limited. So it tilts the whole system in favor of very risky behavior. I think a legitimate concern, even after Dodd-Frank, is, "Have we completely changed those incentives?"[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] When investment banks, for example, were partnerships, as opposed to corporations, all those partners understood that if there was some tail risk out there – some unanticipated event that might result in the whole firm blowing up – that they were going to lose all their money, they were going to lose all their assets. They weren't protected. These days, you've got guys who are making five years of risky bets, but it's making them $100 million every year. By the time the chicken comes home to roost, they're still way ahead of the game. So I think it's something that needs to be discussed. But that's not something that can entirely be legislated – that's something that also has to involve shareholders and boards of directors being better stewards of their institutions.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] [color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]Read more: [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2AvpSvk9Q"]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2AvpSvk9Q[/url][/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351735123' post='1176080'] Once again that's such a simple argument. As part of the U.S., we are supposed to be treated equal, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If anything, the under dogs of the economy are given more benefits from government than the big businesses are. That wasn't the case with the Bank and Automotive bail outs, but during normal situations they are. [/quote] Maybe. It's possible that you know more about economics and political economy than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351735610' post='1176082'] Which trips me out what Obama said about Glass-Stegal in the recent Rolling Stone interview... [color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]Read more: [/size][/font][/color][url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2AvpSvk9Q"]http://www.rollingst...5#ixzz2AvpSvk9Q[/url] [/quote] Sad, isn't it? Four years ago some of us were hoping for a new FDR and all we got was an economically dumber Bill Clinton. I think his statements here indicate not only that he is reliant on his coterie of pro-FIRE economists/players, but that it is precisely this sort of thinking which makes him acceptable to the elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351733223' post='1176071'] I don't want to speak for Vol, but I think his argument, which I tend to agree with, is that reforms ought to address the ills which provoke those reforms and not place an undue burden on those other entities which are "along for the ride" so to speak. This is to me one of the weaknesses of Dodd/Frank. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it, too. That legislation was written in such a way as to preserve much of the structural edifice of current financial affairs, addressing only the egregiously evil stuff. A return to the principles of Glass-Steagall would have clearly (one hopes) separated the functions of commercial banking and merchant banking. This would also have the positive effect of not forcing smaller financial institutions (those which are classified as commercial) to follow regulations designed to address the merchant banking side of things. I know you more or less agree with all this, Jamie. My take is that Vol does, too. [/quote] Homer this is exactly what I'm meaning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351778670' post='1176170'] Sad, isn't it? Four years ago some of us were hoping for a new FDR and all we got was an economically dumber Bill Clinton. I think his statements here indicate not only that he is reliant on his coterie of pro-FIRE economists/players, but that it is precisely this sort of thinking which makes him acceptable to the elite. [/quote] I wonder how much of it is because of who funded his campaign and who is now funding Romney and if Obama wins with who is funding it now if change in this sector is still possible or if its going to take something worse for people to get serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351778389' post='1176167'] Maybe. It's possible that you know more about economics and political economy than I do. [/quote] Man this argument is getting played out. If you are the next Allen Greenspan or Warren Buffet I don't care. Playing this, "I'm smarty than you" rants is quite silly and childish. In one thread you tell me not to quote you because it might damage your reputation and relationship with others on this board, the next you are saying silly stuff like this. So you really think you are the smartest man on this board about politics and the economy? You might be, but that doesn't mean you will always be right, and that it affords you the right to just claim to be so smart that you automatically trump what anyone else has to say. If that the case they might as well close down the whole section of the forums and build a section just for you to post about economy and politics. No one could post responses though, because they aren't on the same level as you. I used to think you were better than that, at this point I'm not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351788940' post='1176200'] I wonder how much of it is because of who funded his campaign and who is now funding Romney and if Obama wins with who is funding it now if change in this sector is still possible or if its going to take something worse for people to get serious. [/quote] Maybe some minor changes. But the major opportunity for the kinds of serious change that some of us were hoping for in the wake of the meltdown is gone. It'll have to wait for the next blowout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351802683' post='1176273'] Man this argument is getting played out. If you are the next Allen Greenspan or Warren Buffet I don't care. Playing this, "I'm smarty than you" rants is quite silly and childish. In one thread you tell me not to quote you because it might damage your reputation and relationship with others on this board, the next you are saying silly stuff like this. So you really think you are the smartest man on this board about politics and the economy? You might be, but that doesn't mean you will always be right, and that it affords you the right to just claim to be so smart that you automatically trump what anyone else has to say. If that the case they might as well close down the whole section of the forums and build a section just for you to post about economy and politics. No one could post responses though, because they aren't on the same level as you. I used to think you were better than that, at this point I'm not so sure. [/quote] I'm a legend in my own mind, Lew. Besides, I think you are a nice guy and I didn't want to flat out say to you--"Stop with the inane comments about subjects you are clearly witless about." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351803597' post='1176279'] Maybe some minor changes. But the major opportunity for the kinds of serious change that some of us were hoping for in the wake of the meltdown is gone. It'll have to wait for the next blowout. [/quote] What worries me is about who will be in charge when the next meltdown happens because Americans attention span on these issues is so small that which ever party is in power when it does happen will be the 1 that gets blamed which means the other party will take advantage of that in order to implement policy they philosophically believe in So if the meltdown comes when someone like Obama is in charge who is a Democrat but nowhere near Liberal we might end up seeing hey stronger shift to the fascist right when will we really need is progressive policies similar to FDR Over the long term I think we will get there but the question remains how many people will get hurt in the process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351803756' post='1176283'] I'm a legend in my own mind, Lew. Besides, I think you are a nice guy and I didn't want to flat out say to you--"Stop with the inane comments about subjects you are clearly witless about." [/quote] I'm only witless about them because there is like a 3-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans on this board. If you post something I agree with I'll tell you, but I was extremely surprised you brought up the subject of Lincoln and slavery. If your history is as up to par as your politics and economy, you should have known the Civil War wasn't about slavery. In fact some have pointed out in some of Lincolns speeches and writings, he still felt that African Americans were still below the value of white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351804429' post='1176293'] What worries me is about who will be in charge when the next meltdown happens because Americans attention span on these issues is so small that which ever party is in power when it does happen will be the 1 that gets blamed which means the other party will take advantage of that in order to implement policy they philosophically believe in So if the meltdown comes when someone like Obama is in charge who is a Democrat but nowhere near Liberal we might end up seeing hey stronger shift to the fascist right when will we really need is progressive policies similar to FDR Over the long term I think we will get there but the question remains how many people will get hurt in the process [/quote] Remember back before the blowout when I kept saying that the problem is systemic? That still holds true and I think that is the best way to approach future policy development. The knife-edge character of our political tendencies that you suggest is why I often express my worries about proto-fascism. Keep in mind that FDR was not only hated by his fellow elitists; he was also decried as a fascist by some of the extreme Liberals and Socialists of the day. I'm thinking of the NRA in particular which some thought had a strong resemblance to Mussolini's corporativist program. Personally, I don't think it will be [i]either Democrats or Republicans[/i] who help us move forward from these systemic dangers. Likewise if one characterizes it as conservatives or liberals. What I suspect will eventually happen (on the positive side) is that we'll see both major parties collaborate and come together around potential solutions once the going gets rough again--because every time we have another one of these events in this 40 year cascade of financial crises conditions get significantly worse. At least I hope it will be a collaboration because I think it'll take all of us to get this economy sane again. And, yes, I agree, in the meanwhile lots of people will be hurt along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351804793' post='1176301'] I'm only witless about them because there is like a 3-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans on this board. If you post something I agree with I'll tell you, but I was extremely surprised you brought up the subject of Lincoln and slavery. If your history is as up to par as your politics and economy, you should have known the Civil War wasn't about slavery. In fact some have pointed out in some of Lincolns speeches and writings, he still felt that African Americans were still below the value of white people. [/quote] You are right. The last time I saw a white person on sale at the auction block the price was too damn high. Colored folk, on the other hand, seemed like quite a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.