No regulations needed, hmmm.
laker1963
Posts: 5,046
Here is some food for thought regarding whether after the big financial meltdown, these companies should be facing more regulations, less regulation or as some on these forums have put forth NO regulations. Makes for some interesting reading, if you can get thru it without puking. 
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2009/11/16/23bn-bonuses-not-gods-work
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2009/11/16/23bn-bonuses-not-gods-work
0
Comments
to better derail this thread...I haven't heard what the new Boondock Saints movie is about, but it should be about killing these fܩkers
thats not a bit biased at all
i should retort with links from FOX news...
but thats not the point here....
this is exactly the problem with the bailouts...
if there were no bailouts then the government wouldnt have the hand in the pot of the companies they helped. since the government has so much money invested in the company, they have a ton of influence on those companies.
this is why i am against the bailouts.
the government doesnt "own" the company directly, but in a way it does. Same with GM. those companies have to bow down to the government and do what they are told because if they dont their money is gone. no free man, or men, should ever have to bow down to any government to continue to run their business.
the question here is not if the government has a say in what a company does with the money the government gave them. the answer is simple to that one. As a major investor in the company, the government can influence them. any other investor can and does.
however, the article says that the government loan has been paid back. the government has no claim to the company. they should have no say in the bonus. $23bn is a lot of money. but "profit" and "bonus" are not evil words.
you have every right to not like those people if you want, but taking away the bonus they get will not help you, me, or anyone else. As long as they have not infringed on the rights of anyone to get the bonus, the bonus should stand.
therefore the real question was if it was constitutional for the government to invest in the private company to begin with.
Every housing-related measure taken by Washington has made the standards for home-ownership looser than they would be in a free market. Government has stepped in to override private companies aversion to undue risk. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. FNMA and FHLMC were created to encourage the issuance of mortgages that would not be prudent in a free market. The FDIC anesthetizes depositors against risks taken with their funds. And the entire Federal Reserve exists to pump paper money into the economy, and to keep interest rates artificially low--often below the rate of inflation--so that more lending occurs. Yet when this house of cards collapsed, it is capitalism that was denounced, and more government power that was demanded.
A government unrealistic enough to think it can micro-manage is likely to do a worse job than most.
A few hundred politicians, or a few thousand bureaucrats, cannot possibly have sufficient knowledge to manage complex economics, solve complex problems, or match the brain-power of billions of people operating in a free market.
back on topic...
but no... not Gods work. nobody does "Gods work." only God does God's work.
the company should have gone under. the government should only have shown up to prosecute the people that infringed on the rights of people.
OK I am going to call you on this one Kuzi.
You are always comenting on the information sources you have used being poo pooed, or ignored. I presented an article from Al Jazzera, and you make a comment about the source. Whether YOU like them or NOT...Al Jazzera in an International Accredited News source. Just because they say some things which make YOU uncomfortable does NOT make them untrustworthy, or biased, anymore then ANY American News source when they are speaking about things such as the Middle East. This seems like a case of you (the pot) calling Al Jazzera(the kettle) black. Can't have it both ways.
As for companies having to function as the government dictates... when have you heard the company's who have accepted bailout money complaining about this? I have NOT. Although I don't see any difference with the situation these companies find themselves in regardless of whether the money to keep them functioning comes from the Banks or the Government. If you lend somebody money you have an obligation to ensure that the money was lent wisely, bank do this as part of Due Process. what is the difference here? The government had better ensure they get certain guidelines or regulations in place to ensure the money they gave as bailout money wasn't just pissed away like the original money. Otherwise they would have to answer to people like yourself who would be screaming blue murder about the imcompetance of giving away money so irresponsibly, and rightfully so too.
I also disagree that the question about the constitutionality of this program is the real question. The REAL question is should the money have been given to a bunch of people who thru their own methods, almost destroyed the US economy and at the same time had HUGE negative effects on the economies of many other countries in the world, WITHOUT demanding some rules and regulations. The REAL question is What makes anybody think that the same people who ruined the economy are competant enough to fix it? When you see articles like the one I linked where they are or have handed out undeserved BONUS money when this whole situation is still so far from being resolved, it just reinforces idea's the system is only broke for people with no money. The Elite's and people who think like them, don't seem to think there is a problem at all anymore. Time to get back to business as usual. Problem is that business as usual is what caused this whole mess. So YES maybe it IS time for some well thought regulation of businesses in the US.
Or you could just go back to trusting these wonderful, business leaders who put the country in the tank in the first place. Worked well the first time out, and I am sure we can all trust that these fine people have learned a lesson and wouldn't let that happen again... right
please keep this paragraph in mind next time a FOX news source is being used. Personally i dont use fox news. just not me.
they dont make uncomfortable at all actually. they have their opinions, i have mine. I do not agree with them. but not everyone agrees.
much like fox news, you cant call Al Jazzera unbiased.
this is the exact point i was trying ti make in other thread.
i did say this: so when you say this: you seem to have missed what i said. ... or the point of it at least. the government did invest. they should, being a major investor, dictate how the money is used.
however, the question should not be can the government dictate policy to corporations it invests in but rater is it constitutional that the government invests in them in the first place. these are not unrelated questions and ideas. interesting...
I know that i edited since the post you quoted but when i said this i was claiming that the government itself had a large hand in bringing down the banking industry.
why would i want to give them back regulatory power? undeserved bonus...
i guess that depends on the qualifications of bonus. if the qualification was "bring the world back from the edge of economic failure" then it isnt deserved.
if the qualification for bonus was "pay back the government and get this bank on the road to solvency" then maybe it is deserved. iduno. i didnt make the criteria or dole out the bonus. if "business as usual" is "government slowly taking over an regulating more and more of the way anybody does anything via regulation and attempting to micromanage an impossibly complex economy" then you are right.
as long as that regulation ONLY consists of keeping that business from violating the rights of the individual. it wasnt just buisnesses that caused the economic crisis.
and like ive said before (and for some reason nobody seems to read) IF THE BUSINESS VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED.
this means that if it is found that they actually made false promises or intentionally went out of their way to make bad loans then they should be punished because this is theft or fraud. however, regulating beyond that is not what the country needs. regulating how much money people can make will not fix this. punishing people for wrong doings = good. micromanaging an economy = bad. if the lesson was taught correctly (by not bailing these guys out) maybe it wouldnt be as likely to happen again.
At any rate rather then comment on your opinions because they are just that, yours, and like everyone you are entitled to them.
You referred early in your post by attempting to turn my words around on me and I suppose show that I was being hypocritical? Problem is I have never said that Fox News was NOT an acredited news source. I have read comments to that effect here many times but have not made them myself. I agree that ALL (AND I MEAN ALL) news sources are biased for one reason or another. As usual you never commented on the article at all, but changed the subject matter to something altogether different.
We seem to agree that companies are responsible to the people who have money invested in them. If that source happens to be the Government however, you have a major problem with that, and I don't. The private sector was NOT attempting to pour vast amounts of money into the broken system and that left only the government to do it. Why then is that bad, or should the private sector be looked upon in a more favorable light then the government? The private sector was sitting on their money and NOT investing. something had to be done... what would you propose, other then letting the system collapse. What would you have done to get it going again?
Does the constitution speak about financial systems and how they function at all Kuzi? That is just one of those pattented arguements that can be used in any instance. That is not the function of the constitution .
As for the rest of my comments they are now intermixed with your since edited post and no longer speak to what I was speaking to considering they are now inserted and answered to portions of your post which didn't even exist when I first wrote them, so I will NOT bother to try and sort out anything said past your first post which I quoted in my first response.
Funny thing is up here where I know you think we are all stupid left wing liberals our "over regulated" system came thru just fine, and excellently compared to the US banks.
The arguement that the banks were FORCED to make bad investents is just silly. But that is just my opinion.
As for my "contradictory" quote... this is what I said in full, and I don't see anything you said changing my position on what I said. This is what I said
If you lend somebody money you have an obligation to ensure that the money was lent wisely, bank do this as part of Due Process. what is the difference here? The government had better ensure they get certain guidelines or regulations in place to ensure the money they gave as bailout money wasn't just pissed away like the original money. Otherwise they would have to answer to people like yourself who would be screaming blue murder about the imcompetance of giving away money so irresponsibly, and rightfully so too.
You are assuming that I agree with your assesment of my arguement, which I don't so I can't really answer your question regarding how the two things can both be good, sorry.
The reason I have a problem with the government investing instead of private investors is because THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY. What they took from us they already spent. Now they are spending my grand children's money. The reason they have no money is because they pissed it all away and we, the American People, can't do anything about it.
the government should (as an investor) regulate a buisness that it has invested in. thats what all major investors do.
the government should not regulate companies id does not invest in.
that being said i feel the need to again say that the US government should not be investing in any company...by force, by choice, or because they are "too big to fail"
maybe im not wording it right and that may be why it is coming across as a disconnect.
or for a third option, NOBODY to do it. investments bring risk. when the government keeps large companies from failing, they are really preventing a correction in the system. the correction is not fun but the strong will survive and the companies that made stupid deals will go away. the government bailed out a company that couldnt stay afloat. they took away the risk involved with that. the reality is, when GM went bankrupt, there would have been someone to buy them out. it doesnt have to be the government.
all any company has to do now when they are about to go bankrupt is prove they are "to big/important to fail"
the risk in investments keeps people from making dumb ass deals. take our knocks now. learn our lessons. and like americans of the past, pick ourselves up by the bootstraps.
no, because it is not the roll of government to ensure them. it is the roll of the government to protect the rights of the individual. Money is not a right. it is a tool of barter. i do not feel that your assertion here is the case. it was not put in there because it was not supposed to be controlled by the government. The framers of the constitution had an idea of what the roll of the government should be. financial dictator/regulator/insurer did not fit the goals of "limited government" that they were trying to attain.
I do want to explore this concept more though. i feel that there is more to your statement than meets the eye, and maybe i can learn something out of it, or we both can learn something.
similarly...
what about the argument of "the government should do SOMETHING" ? how is that different? it can be used in any instance.
any time anyone gets ticked off by something the cry is "the government should do something" and usually it ends up as the government taking more rights away and raising taxes. then the rationale is: "its better than doing nothing" however, often times doing nothing can be a good option .
yeah.... i swear that i didnt see your post before editing. i didnt see you online either so i didnt know you were already responding.
i gotta proof read more before i hit the post button.
i always seem to come up with the wording or thought about 5 minutes after i hit "post"
ill try and be more careful in the future.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5503
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5487
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10074
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-8.pdf
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/23/the-solution-to-the-government-caused-housing-crisis-more-government/
http://moneyning.com/housing/government-regulation-in-the-housing-and-financial-crisis/
that was just a VERY quick search using Yahoo! and a quick search on sites i think are interesting. if you would like to read more i would be willing to look up more for you. there are people talking about it other than me and puro.
i agree. it is silly. the government set up the regulations to make it very easy to get a loan even if you couldnt afford it or it was questionable to get one. then, the FDIC and other government agencies took the risk out of making those loans by insuring them. the lending companies went out and made loans with no risk because the government would take care of them and buy them up. ... and they did. this made money for them and they wouldnt have concequences. this was unsustainable, at some point people need to get paid. the bubble burst.
again, when you regulate the risk out of investment, no good can come from it. it will always bite you in the ass.
if the government regulation wasnt there, the loans probably would not have been made because there was too much risk to their own money. it is easy to risk other peoples money. and thats what they were doing.
i hope my wording was correct. did that make any sense?
if you have a counter argument, then please feel free to present it, but dont just brush these links and my thoughts aside as worthless simply because you do not agree with them.
laker, thank you for taking the time to read them and put thought to them as to formulate a counter argument. debate and discussion is always a good thing, even if you dont agree with the other person and never will. also, thank you for taking it seriously and leaving name calling out of it. this is exactly the type of conversation people need to have.
i want you to know that i dont think you are stupid. I dont want you to think that i think you dont care about people. I know you do. i know you are passionate about subjects. I am as well.
i have posted many MANY links that show the exact opposite. I have listed policies, regulations, government regulating agencies and how they work and how all those things came together to regulate risk out of the housing market.
how do you expect me to believe that there was deregulation when you never show me what was deregulated?
"look around" is not proof. I did look around. i looked long and hard and i came up with many economists that support what i am saying.
please tell me what specifically was deregulated so i can take your argument more seriously.
However, there are geographic monopolies everywhere, the last stop gas stations in the middle of a remote location with no other gas stations for 50 miles has a monopoly on gas. For instance, you will find burger joints everywhere, but there probably is going to only be one restaurant serving Indian or African food in a town.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm
Now take a look at this and tell me what has been deregulated in the banking industry. Also along with Banking, tell me where the auto industry was deregulated since according to you that is the cause of the economic melt down. I'm very curious what regulations were done away with to make you think deregulation occurred.
i think that the article that i could find that most supports you claim of deregulation is THIS one.
written by Shah Gilani
however, the more i go over it (and i have read it a few times) it actually supports what i have been saying a bit as well. ( not completely) The most compelling argument in this article that deregulation caused this mess was this bit here: so i decided to read up a bit more on the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
where did i look first?
the link that was on the page the above quote came from. LINK
i emboldened the words in the quote where the link was located
when you follow that link it gives a summery of the act along with a bit of back ground. in that link the following could be found:
"The GSA, however, was considered harsh by most in the financial community, and it was reported that even Glass himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis."
and
"The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer."
and
"Although the barrier between commercial and investment banking aimed to prevent a loss of deposits in the event of investment failures, the reasons for the repeal of the GSA and the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act show that even regulatory attempts for safety can have adverse effects."
there were other notables in the Shah Gilani article.
such as this one: she then goes on to list a few of the things this bill did.
one thing in particular i found interesting:
Increased Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) coverage from $40,000 to $100,000.
again this is a reduction of risk.
one of the things that she didnt mention that this "deregulation act" forced all banks to abide by the Fed's rules.
back to the areticle...
the full title of this bill was
"GarnSt. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. An Act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans."
if you have been reading what i have been saying in the past, you will see that this was a regulatory act designed to make loans more available to more people.
Gilani also goes on to talk about the rise of the subprime lending including the quote:
"If helping struggling borrowers pursue their homeownership dreams was such a noble cause, it might have been incumbent upon the senator to not block legislation advocating the curtailment of predatory lending practices."
my question is how does one practice "predatory lending?"
my only guess is that the borrower would not be told about the way the loans work, or lied to about how they work. . this is in fact a violation of rights (fraud, theft ) there are laws that say a lender must disclose all terms of the loan.
but beyond that, it is the responsibility of the borrower to ask. it reminds me of the saying "buyer beware."
so to qualify as "predatory" one must actively conceal the terms of the loan. again, this means that those who didnt reveal the terms were violating rights, and those who did were not violating rights. the "deregulation" that allowed ARMs and interest only loans was not to blame, but rather the bank violating rights or the borrower being uninformed.
Fair Housing Act (1968)
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974)
the Community Reinvestment Act (1977)
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975)
the National Affordable Housing Act (1990)
the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994)
the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994)
the American Dream Down Payment Act (2003)
how about a list of the regulatory agencies?
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB)
the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)
i know you think that debate with me is a waste of time. so why do you do it?
i debate to learn. i debate to see other sides of things. i debate to explore difficult questions. I dont find any of this to be a waste of time. If you feel that it is, then please stop wasting your time.