"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(29-01-2014 07:58 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  As I stated before, I worked for FINRA as an investigator. Let me tell you that although you feel companies who manipulated the market got off with a slap on the wrist, let me give you a glimpse into a regulator.

First, regulation can only be proactive with the rules they have and reactive by creating new rules for new products like supermontage trading, advanced derivatives, futures and products. These products are created faster than rules can be set for their use. To require a rule to be made before you create a product, would significantly impact the capitalism you are so fond of, Frank. And if a rule doesn't exist - how can be held accountable for violating something that doesn't exist?

Next, the products are often so sophisticated that the peon examiners don't understand the products.

You can't find the risks of a product if you don't understand the product.

Since FINRA pays an average of $50,000 for an entry level examiner, these are often kids fresh outta college.

Even the most senior examiners will cap out at $150,000. If they are smart enough to understand fully and entirely, the complexity of these products and understand exactly how algorithmic trading works (because they understand the mathematical algorithms themselves) then where are they gonna work? Work for Finra for a measly $150,000 per year? Or work for Goldman Sachs for a base salary of $800,000 per year? Hmmmmm Consider tough decision!

So Finra and the SEC can't employ the people to understand these products.

Next, the investigation: 100,000 emails to go through to find the smoking gun. Then the on the record depositions...where they don't even have their 5th amendment right (did you know you waive your right when you enter the securities industry?) where each hand claims they didn't know what the other was doing. No one ever confesses.

When a mob of people stampeed a person to death, how do you determine who is responsible?

Settlement seems like a slap on the wrist - because it is. That's the best a regulator can do. Until this country makes it a criminal offense when a product fails, or realizes its tremendous risk, there is little more that the regulator can do.

If your goal was to make an argument for more regulation or regulators ..... epic fail.

I think there are a lot of problems and challenges with regulation. That the people being regulated are generally more experienced than the regulators is one of them. But, I think there is a much larger issue that revolves around the total unwillingness to stop large institutions from doing anything at all. There is an on-going revolving door between government regulators and the entties they regulate. It's not just in the financial services industry, it's across the board. Government doesn't pay all that well in comparrison and someone who costs a company or an industry a lot of money is unlikely to get a private sector job in that industry. So, they play ball.

And, this happens at the highest level. The same guys in the justice department who refused to prosecute any of the banks for their conduct are now working for the law firms that defend the banks, and making truck loads of money. Our government has completely abdicated its responsibilities and no longer represents ordinary citizens but only those entities who can buy inflience.

Some asshole hedgefun manager was saying last weekend how outrage over hwo he pays only 15% income tax on the billions he earns in his funds was similar to the way the Jews were treated in Nazi germany. See, the Jews were 1% of the population and he's part of a 1% so it's all the same, right? That moron is drawing the wrong historical reference. The one that should be on his mind is how the French peasantry treated the aristrocacy when they rose up in 1789. The "solutions" put in place after the 2008 crash didn't make it less likey this will happen again, it made it more likely. We went from a dozen entites who were too big to fail to a half dozen even larger entities. And, the systemic problems have not been resolved at all. It is almost inevitable we are going to have another big crash and, despite all the claims from Obama and others that they won't bail out the banks again, they are going to have to. They have set it up so there won't be any real other option. Maybe the middle class will sit back a 2nd time and let themselves be robbed to pay out these scumbags, but I doubt it. I think it is far more likely we break out the guillotines at that point.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
29-01-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(29-01-2014 11:11 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Wrong again. First its basic understanding that utility can be measured. Then its that milk actually is a commodity traded on the market. Now it's that no one reads anything I write. Thumbsup You are really on a roll here.

I'm sure you have quite the following, waiting patiently for your every word. Laughat

...have one of these too... Drooling

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(29-01-2014 09:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 07:58 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  As I stated before, I worked for FINRA as an investigator. Let me tell you that although you feel companies who manipulated the market got off with a slap on the wrist, let me give you a glimpse into a regulator.

First, regulation can only be proactive with the rules they have and reactive by creating new rules for new products like supermontage trading, advanced derivatives, futures and products. These products are created faster than rules can be set for their use. To require a rule to be made before you create a product, would significantly impact the capitalism you are so fond of, Frank. And if a rule doesn't exist - how can be held accountable for violating something that doesn't exist?

Next, the products are often so sophisticated that the peon examiners don't understand the products.

You can't find the risks of a product if you don't understand the product.

Since FINRA pays an average of $50,000 for an entry level examiner, these are often kids fresh outta college.

Even the most senior examiners will cap out at $150,000. If they are smart enough to understand fully and entirely, the complexity of these products and understand exactly how algorithmic trading works (because they understand the mathematical algorithms themselves) then where are they gonna work? Work for Finra for a measly $150,000 per year? Or work for Goldman Sachs for a base salary of $800,000 per year? Hmmmmm Consider tough decision!

So Finra and the SEC can't employ the people to understand these products.

Next, the investigation: 100,000 emails to go through to find the smoking gun. Then the on the record depositions...where they don't even have their 5th amendment right (did you know you waive your right when you enter the securities industry?) where each hand claims they didn't know what the other was doing. No one ever confesses.

When a mob of people stampeed a person to death, how do you determine who is responsible?

Settlement seems like a slap on the wrist - because it is. That's the best a regulator can do. Until this country makes it a criminal offense when a product fails, or realizes its tremendous risk, there is little more that the regulator can do.

If your goal was to make an argument for more regulation or regulators ..... epic fail.

I think there are a lot of problems and challenges with regulation. That the people being regulated are generally more experienced than the regulators is one of them. But, I think there is a much larger issue that revolves around the total unwillingness to stop large institutions from doing anything at all. There is an on-going revolving door between government regulators and the entties they regulate. It's not just in the financial services industry, it's across the board. Government doesn't pay all that well in comparrison and someone who costs a company or an industry a lot of money is unlikely to get a private sector job in that industry. So, they play ball.

And, this happens at the highest level. The same guys in the justice department who refused to prosecute any of the banks for their conduct are now working for the law firms that defend the banks, and making truck loads of money. Our government has completely abdicated its responsibilities and no longer represents ordinary citizens but only those entities who can buy inflience.

Some asshole hedgefun manager was saying last weekend how outrage over hwo he pays only 15% income tax on the billions he earns in his funds was similar to the way the Jews were treated in Nazi germany. See, the Jews were 1% of the population and he's part of a 1% so it's all the same, right? That moron is drawing the wrong historical reference. The one that should be on his mind is how the French peasantry treated the aristrocacy when they rose up in 1789. The "solutions" put in place after the 2008 crash didn't make it less likey this will happen again, it made it more likely. We went from a dozen entites who were too big to fail to a half dozen even larger entities. And, the systemic problems have not been resolved at all. It is almost inevitable we are going to have another big crash and, despite all the claims from Obama and others that they won't bail out the banks again, they are going to have to. They have set it up so there won't be any real other option. Maybe the middle class will sit back a 2nd time and let themselves be robbed to pay out these scumbags, but I doubt it. I think it is far more likely we break out the guillotines at that point.

no no, not at all. My point was merely that regulators and regulation is widely reactionary and not proactive. Regulation will not and cannot prevent all failures. It is inept.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(29-01-2014 09:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  If your goal was to make an argument for more regulation or regulators ..... epic fail.

no no, not at all. My point was merely that regulators and regulation is widely reactionary and not proactive. Regulation will not and cannot prevent all failures. It is inept.

I actually think we need LESS specific regulatory rules and more general (blanket) rules with harsher penalties for violation. No second and third chances.

The more specific a law or a rule, the more loopholes you create since behavior can be nuanced as to not be an actual violation since the rule no longer applies.

Rules like, thou shall not pad the pockets of your executives in the event that a risk is realized. Thou shall not bet against the market. Thou shall not be a douchbag. shit like that.

[/quote]

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 06:09 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 07:49 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I actually think we need LESS specific regulatory rules and more general (blanket) rules with harsher penalties for violation. ... Thou shall not be a douchbag. shit like that.

Ha, I've been telling that to the mods here ever since they felt the need to introduce new rules above and beyond Stark's 3 Commandments 1) No nudity or porn, 2) No spam, 3) Try not to be a dick. If you can't help but be a dick, try not to be a prick.

Once you introduce regulations both the testing and acceptance criteria necessarily have to be standardized. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Girly worked as an inspector for the USDA. The amount of testing done on our agriculture products in the US is really quite astounding and necessary. Aflatoxin content, for example, needs to be <20 parts per billion or people gonna die and that crop's gotta be destroyed. Insect parts on the other hand are relatively innocuous by comparison. <150 parts per 100 grams in wheat is not actionable. (And while I was there we never had a single sample with 0 insect parts, not surprisingly.) But the USDA and EPA have it easy compared to say the SEC where objective standards are difficult to quantify. My actuary brother left AIG just before its collapse when they tried to get him to sign off on some paperwork that he felt violated Sarbanes-Oxley. Turns out he was right.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(28-01-2014 06:03 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  "Pay a fine in exchange for immunity" You say that like they are granted special immunity because they negotiated with the government. You realize thats how a settlement works right?

No, that's NOT how a settlement works between private parties. Duh. Consider...

On either side of you are 2 neighbors: the Jones and Smiths. Mr. Jones does something that causes $100,000 in damage to your house. So you go to Mr. Jones and say 'reimburse me for my loss or I'm taking you to court.' Now, Mr. Smith comes along and says to Mr. Jones, 'Hey, instead of paying Cathy the $100k in damages, give me $10k and I'll use force to make sure Cathy doesn't get to collect 1 penny from you.' There you go. That's the "settlement" between Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith. But hey, wait, neither of the 2 people who signed the settlement doc are the victim, you, who actually suffered a loss. How can they sign a settlement between them that you don't agree to and which blocks you from collecting???

That's the system you're defending, only Mr. Jones is actually the government. Mr. Smith causes $100k in damage to your property dumping toxic waste, and since Mr. Smith doesn't want to pay your damages, he cuts a deal with the government (ie Mr. Jones) to pay a $10k fine, which grants him immunity, and then you, the victim, are blocked from suing.

The example I gave was the tobacco settlement. Big tobacco defrauded and killed millions of people, causing what juries would consider trillions in damages. So big tobacco goes to the government and says 'please regulate us, we'll pay you a fine, and give us immunity'. Sure, it's a settlement between big tobacco and some government regulator. But neither one of them was the victim! The person who has lung cancer and is dying because Philip Morris knowingly published false medical reports claiming smoking was good for him, he's the victim. He didn't sign the settlement document. He didn't agree to waive his right to sue. He didn't agree to get nothing for his damages. It was a settlement and payment between the company and the regulator, and the victim got shit.

You do bring up points about how messed up the legal system, how costly it is to get your day in court, how only the lawyers win, etc., etc. I agree 100% on all of that, and agree the judicial system needs reforming before property rights can once again accomplish their intended goal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(28-01-2014 08:15 PM)BnW Wrote:  There is far too much proof that companies will not behave without government regulation. Just look what happened when we repealed Glass-Steagle.... AIG got into the financial services business and almost bankrupted the fucking planet. It didn't take very long either.

ROFL. You know that re: the repeal of Glass-Steagle, both Democrats and Republicans were firmly in support of it, and it was only the libertarians that were completely against it. Ron Paul even gave a speech warning that because banks are protected by the government, and if they suffer big losses, the FDIC and ultimately the taxpayers have to bail them out, as a condition to receiving this protection, they shouldn't be allowed to take on risk. In fact, like all libertarians, he was arguing for MORE restrictions--that any bank that is given government protection must be required to practice full reserve banking so there's no risk of bank runs or failures.

It was the democrats and republicans who, as always, said we libertarians were just being paranoid. Then, when it happened just like we said it would, NOW you guys are like "Holy shit. What the fuck happened?!?!?! The whole financial system just melted down." And we just shake our heads.

(28-01-2014 08:15 PM)BnW Wrote:  Why it's ok for the government to enforce judgements one off but not to prevent wide spread abuse is absolutely beyond me.

It's called "free will", or liberty. If you and I enter into a voluntary agreement which states that I will do certain things and agree that the courts will enforce them, then I have consented to the use of force. The role of government imo should be to enforce voluntary contracts and protect property rights, and doing so doesn't infringe on your free will. If you don't want to do something, don't agree to do it, don't execute the contract, and don't damage other people's property. That's completely the opposite from when government comes in and forces someone to do something agianst his will. I've explained this a million times, and it still doesn't sink in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
30-01-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 07:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 06:03 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  "Pay a fine in exchange for immunity" You say that like they are granted special immunity because they negotiated with the government. You realize thats how a settlement works right?

No, that's NOT how a settlement works between private parties. Duh. Consider...

On either side of you are 2 neighbors: the Jones and Smiths. Mr. Jones does something that causes $100,000 in damage to your house. So you go to Mr. Jones and say 'reimburse me for my loss or I'm taking you to court.' Now, Mr. Smith comes along and says to Mr. Jones, 'Hey, instead of paying Cathy the $100k in damages, give me $10k and I'll use force to make sure Cathy doesn't get to collect 1 penny from you.' There you go. That's the "settlement" between Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith. But hey, wait, neither of the 2 people who signed the settlement doc are the victim, you, who actually suffered a loss. How can they sign a settlement between them that you don't agree to and which blocks you from collecting???

That's the system you're defending, only Mr. Jones is actually the government. Mr. Smith causes $100k in damage to your property dumping toxic waste, and since Mr. Smith doesn't want to pay your damages, he cuts a deal with the government (ie Mr. Jones) to pay a $10k fine, which grants him immunity, and then you, the victim, are blocked from suing.

The example I gave was the tobacco settlement. Big tobacco defrauded and killed millions of people, causing what juries would consider trillions in damages. So big tobacco goes to the government and says 'please regulate us, we'll pay you a fine, and give us immunity'. Sure, it's a settlement between big tobacco and some government regulator. But neither one of them was the victim! The person who has lung cancer and is dying because Philip Morris knowingly published false medical reports claiming smoking was good for him, he's the victim. He didn't sign the settlement document. He didn't agree to waive his right to sue. He didn't agree to get nothing for his damages. It was a settlement and payment between the company and the regulator, and the victim got shit.

You do bring up points about how messed up the legal system, how costly it is to get your day in court, how only the lawyers win, etc., etc. I agree 100% on all of that, and agree the judicial system needs reforming before property rights can once again accomplish their intended goal.

Again, you don't understand settlement. What you are referencing is a 3rd party settlement. Settling with the government does not grant you immunity from your crimes. OJ Simpson was acquited in criminal court but that didn't preclude or affect any judgement of civil.

Your moronic example is not what happens. If someone causes damages to my property, but settles with the government regarding their criminal fines, I can still go after them for civil penalties to fix my damage. Not being guilty of criminal action does not mean you aren't in it for civil.

Now, there are such instances where oth the government and the victims join to sue. Bernie madoff is a prime example. The government held him guilty of criminal fraud charges and collected fees for itself and also ordered madoff pay restitution.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 08:19 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 06:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 07:49 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I actually think we need LESS specific regulatory rules and more general (blanket) rules with harsher penalties for violation. ... Thou shall not be a douchbag. shit like that.

Ha, I've been telling that to the mods here ever since they felt the need to introduce new rules above and beyond Stark's 3 Commandments 1) No nudity or porn, 2) No spam, 3) Try not to be a dick. If you can't help but be a dick, try not to be a prick.

Once you introduce regulations both the testing and acceptance criteria necessarily have to be standardized. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Girly worked as an inspector for the USDA. The amount of testing done on our agriculture products in the US is really quite astounding and necessary. Aflatoxin content, for example, needs to be <20 parts per billion or people gonna die and that crop's gotta be destroyed. Insect parts on the other hand are relatively innocuous by comparison. <150 parts per 100 grams in wheat is not actionable. (And while I was there we never had a single sample with 0 insect parts, not surprisingly.) But the USDA and EPA have it easy compared to say the SEC where objective standards are difficult to quantify. My actuary brother left AIG just before its collapse when they tried to get him to sign off on some paperwork that he felt violated Sarbanes-Oxley. Turns out he was right.

Girly, I recommend a book called The Death of Common Sense by Philip Howard.

While some regulations must be very specific, it does create loopholes if farmers were able to develop new pesticides that didn't meet the definition in the rule.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
30-01-2014, 08:45 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 08:57 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 08:19 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 06:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Ha, I've been telling that to the mods here ever since they felt the need to introduce new rules above and beyond Stark's 3 Commandments 1) No nudity or porn, 2) No spam, 3) Try not to be a dick. If you can't help but be a dick, try not to be a prick.

Once you introduce regulations both the testing and acceptance criteria necessarily have to be standardized. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Girly worked as an inspector for the USDA. The amount of testing done on our agriculture products in the US is really quite astounding and necessary. Aflatoxin content, for example, needs to be <20 parts per billion or people gonna die and that crop's gotta be destroyed. Insect parts on the other hand are relatively innocuous by comparison. <150 parts per 100 grams in wheat is not actionable. (And while I was there we never had a single sample with 0 insect parts, not surprisingly.) But the USDA and EPA have it easy compared to say the SEC where objective standards are difficult to quantify. My actuary brother left AIG just before its collapse when they tried to get him to sign off on some paperwork that he felt violated Sarbanes-Oxley. Turns out he was right.

Girly, I recommend a book called The Death of Common Sense by Philip Howard.

While some regulations must be very specific, it does create loopholes if farmers were able to develop new pesticides that didn't meet the definition in the rule.

They ALWAYS create loopholes, that's what I keep telling the mods here when they introduce new rules. You back yourself into a corner when you introduce new regulation, hence the reactionary aspect you pointed out. Let's consider the Controlled Substance Act. A wily underground chemist might say "Hey, if I just mirror image the molecular structure of this compound I could likely get a similar effect and it wouldn't be subject to the Controlled Substance Act." How you gonna regulate that? If it has the potential to get you stoned it's subject to regulation? That ain't gonna work. The best example of this is the WADA and drug testing for doping of Olympic athletes. Their approach is that if it even has the potential for performance enhancement it is banned. Hell they even test for caffeine. The underground chemist thinks "Let's see if you can detect mirror-image caffeine. It'll probably have similar performance-enhancing effects." WADA and their ilk are unwitting performance-enhancing drug enhancers. They're just promoting the technology by dicking with the underground chemists. ... And all is right with the world. ...'cept for them dudes dicking with pesticides and shit. They should be rounded up, castrated and shot. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: