"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Frank - lemme explain it this way.

I got mauled my a dog. The town found them not guilty regarding a dangerous dog.

However, I still sued them in civil court because I had surgery to fix the torn ligaments and lost an early term pregnancy.

I settled with their insurance company for $15k less than the policy limits.

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, 09:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 09:08 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frank - lemme explain it this way.

I got mauled my a dog. The town found them not guilty regarding a dangerous dog.

However, I still sued them in civil court because I had surgery to fix the torn ligaments and lost an early term pregnancy.

I settled with their insurance company for $15k less than the policy limits.

You're totally confused. In that example, the regulators, if there were any, did not grant the dog-owner immunity, so you're free to sue. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about cases where companies cause a lot of damage, and then go begging for regulation to grant them immunity. Like the Tobacco Settlement. Call up a lawyer and ask if your grandma with lung cancer who was duped by the Tobacco companies' fraudulent medical reports can sue for damages. What do you think the answer will be? If you think the answer is 'yes', you'd be wrong. If you think the answer is 'no', then you've acknowledged my point that regulation is often there to protect corporations from individuals--not the other way around.

BTW, as a former financial regulation, tell me, what were your thoughts on the 1999 deregulation of the banking industry?

And, back in 1999, what were your thoughts when libertarians were warning everybody what would happen when republicans and democrats gave into the bankers and offered them a system where the banks can take on massive risk, and if they win, they get to keep the money, and if they lose, the taxpayer reimburses them? We were categorizing it as a "heads I win, tails you lose" for bankers, and a "heads you win, tails I lose" for the taxpayer. Were you among the mainstream economists who thought we were being paranoid?

And when the Fed set mortgage interests rate to 0 for years and we were warning that this would create a massive real estate bubble which would ultimately burst and tear down the financial sector, did you think we were being paranoid?

And what about today... Out of the approx 3,000 times that the current monetary system of fiat currency has been tried, can you name one time in all human history when it did not lead to a currency within 50 years? If not, now that we've seen the process repeat 3,000 times with a 100% perfect record of failure, do you, like the mainstream Keynesians, think we're being paranoid for suggesting that this time it will turn out just like all the prior ones?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 09:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:08 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frank - lemme explain it this way.

I got mauled my a dog. The town found them not guilty regarding a dangerous dog.

However, I still sued them in civil court because I had surgery to fix the torn ligaments and lost an early term pregnancy.

I settled with their insurance company for $15k less than the policy limits.

You're totally confused. In that example, the regulators, if there were any, did not grant the dog-owner immunity, so you're free to sue. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about cases where companies cause a lot of damage, and then go begging for regulation to grant them immunity. Like the Tobacco Settlement. Call up a lawyer and ask if your grandma with lung cancer who was duped by the Tobacco companies' fraudulent medical reports can sue for damages. What do you think the answer will be? If you think the answer is 'yes', you'd be wrong. If you think the answer is 'no', then you've acknowledged my point that regulation is often there to protect corporations from individuals--not the other way around.

BTW, as a former financial regulation, tell me, what were your thoughts on the 1999 deregulation of the banking industry?

And, back in 1999, what were your thoughts when libertarians were warning everybody what would happen when republicans and democrats gave into the bankers and offered them a system where the banks can take on massive risk, and if they win, they get to keep the money, and if they lose, the taxpayer reimburses them? We were categorizing it as a "heads I win, tails you lose" for bankers, and a "heads you win, tails I lose" for the taxpayer. Were you among the mainstream economists who thought we were being paranoid?

And when the Fed set mortgage interests rate to 0 for years and we were warning that this would create a massive real estate bubble which would ultimately burst and tear down the financial sector, did you think we were being paranoid?

And what about today... Out of the approx 3,000 times that the current monetary system of fiat currency has been tried, can you name one time in all human history when it did not lead to a currency within 50 years? If not, now that we've seen the process repeat 3,000 times with a 100% perfect record of failure, do you, like the mainstream Keynesians, think we're being paranoid for suggesting that this time it will turn out just like all the prior ones?

You still don't understand. The regulators don't have power to grant immunity from civil action. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Just because an entity did not see criminal actions, it does not absolve them from civil. Do you know how many class actions against JP Morgan there even though the sec settled with them, are?

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, 09:57 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Libertarians can suck my clit.i don't give a shit about libertarians. Quit making all your arguments based on them because it doesn't reflect reality when no government regulation exists.

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, 09:59 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 09:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:08 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frank - lemme explain it this way.

I got mauled my a dog. The town found them not guilty regarding a dangerous dog.

However, I still sued them in civil court because I had surgery to fix the torn ligaments and lost an early term pregnancy.

I settled with their insurance company for $15k less than the policy limits.

You're totally confused. In that example, the regulators, if there were any, did not grant the dog-owner immunity, so you're free to sue. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about cases where companies cause a lot of damage, and then go begging for regulation to grant them immunity. Like the Tobacco Settlement. Call up a lawyer and ask if your grandma with lung cancer who was duped by the Tobacco companies' fraudulent medical reports can sue for damages. What do you think the answer will be? If you think the answer is 'yes', you'd be wrong. If you think the answer is 'no', then you've acknowledged my point that regulation is often there to protect corporations from individuals--not the other way around.

BTW, as a former financial regulation, tell me, what were your thoughts on the 1999 deregulation of the banking industry?

And, back in 1999, what were your thoughts when libertarians were warning everybody what would happen when republicans and democrats gave into the bankers and offered them a system where the banks can take on massive risk, and if they win, they get to keep the money, and if they lose, the taxpayer reimburses them? We were categorizing it as a "heads I win, tails you lose" for bankers, and a "heads you win, tails I lose" for the taxpayer. Were you among the mainstream economists who thought we were being paranoid?

And when the Fed set mortgage interests rate to 0 for years and we were warning that this would create a massive real estate bubble which would ultimately burst and tear down the financial sector, did you think we were being paranoid?

And what about today... Out of the approx 3,000 times that the current monetary system of fiat currency has been tried, can you name one time in all human history when it did not lead to a currency within 50 years? If not, now that we've seen the process repeat 3,000 times with a 100% perfect record of failure, do you, like the mainstream Keynesians, think we're being paranoid for suggesting that this time it will turn out just like all the prior ones?

This may come as a shock to you since you experience such confirmation bias...but Keynesians were also warning of the real estate bubble. It wasnt just your prized libertarians.

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, 10:38 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 09:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  This may come as a shock to you since you experience such confirmation bias...but Keynesians were also warning of the real estate bubble. It wasnt just your prized libertarians.

Who, and when? It doesn't take much skill to read a thermometer and guage the weather outside, but predicting what will happen 10 days from now, requires a model that works reasonably well.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 04:47 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 10:38 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  This may come as a shock to you since you experience such confirmation bias...but Keynesians were also warning of the real estate bubble. It wasnt just your prized libertarians.

Who, and when? It doesn't take much skill to read a thermometer and guage the weather outside, but predicting what will happen 10 days from now, requires a model that works reasonably well.

Economist Dean Baker. In 2002. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publicatio...er-bubble.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicatio...002_08.pdf

You are intellectually dishonest, toad. And I'm calling a Frank Sock puppet.

The reality is that it's not republican vs democrats, libertarians vs Keynesian. Most people, if they are reasonable, have theories and philosophies from each group. I would consider myself a republican, but have some things I'm democrat about.

So clearly whatever party you subscribe to, you are going to attribute all the wins and credit to your group, and attribute all the losses and responsibility with the "other group"

Libertarians predicted the bubble. No. Pretty much everyone with a brain and understanding of business cycles predicted the bubble.

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
31-01-2014, 06:25 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-01-2014 09:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're totally confused. In that example, the regulators, if there were any, did not grant the dog-owner immunity, so you're free to sue. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about cases where companies cause a lot of damage, and then go begging for regulation to grant them immunity. Like the Tobacco Settlement. Call up a lawyer and ask if your grandma with lung cancer who was duped by the Tobacco companies' fraudulent medical reports can sue for damages. What do you think the answer will be? If you think the answer is 'yes', you'd be wrong. If you think the answer is 'no', then you've acknowledged my point that regulation is often there to protect corporations from individuals--not the other way around.

BTW, as a former financial regulation, tell me, what were your thoughts on the 1999 deregulation of the banking industry?

And, back in 1999, what were your thoughts when libertarians were warning everybody what would happen when republicans and democrats gave into the bankers and offered them a system where the banks can take on massive risk, and if they win, they get to keep the money, and if they lose, the taxpayer reimburses them? We were categorizing it as a "heads I win, tails you lose" for bankers, and a "heads you win, tails I lose" for the taxpayer. Were you among the mainstream economists who thought we were being paranoid?

And when the Fed set mortgage interests rate to 0 for years and we were warning that this would create a massive real estate bubble which would ultimately burst and tear down the financial sector, did you think we were being paranoid?

And what about today... Out of the approx 3,000 times that the current monetary system of fiat currency has been tried, can you name one time in all human history when it did not lead to a currency within 50 years? If not, now that we've seen the process repeat 3,000 times with a 100% perfect record of failure, do you, like the mainstream Keynesians, think we're being paranoid for suggesting that this time it will turn out just like all the prior ones?

I don't have time to fully respond to this, but a few quick things.

First, you seem to have absoutely no idea what "regulation" means. The tobacco settlement, whatever else it was, was not "regulation".

Second, who were these libertarians that were screaming about the repeal of Glass-Steagle in 1999? Please provide some names and links. And, good luck with that.

No one proposed a system where it was heads the banks won/tales the tax payers lose. That is exactly what happened but there was very little commentary about that at the time (there was some but it was not coming from libertarians). What the libertarian-in-chiec, personal friend and desciple of Ayn Rand, Allan Greenspan, thought was this was the greatest thing sinced sliced bread. It was his dream child. He helped orchestrate the merger between Citi and Travellers that was illegal at the time it was done. He helped get them the Congressional exception to make the merger happen and then he pushed the repeal of Glass-Steagel and fought any and all attempts to impose any kind of regulation or sanity on these entities. And, the libertarian crowd cheered him right on. During the Clinton years when Brooksly Born, then head of the CFTC went to issue a paper calling for regulation of bank derivatives it was Allan Greenspan and his fellow libertarians (along with Sec Tres Robert Rubin and full-time asshole Larry Summers) that not only fought her at every step but may have broken the law in pushing her to not even release the paper.

The idea that libertarians were warning against deregulation of the banks in the late 1990s and were predicting the markets would not self regulate themselves is about the funniest thing you have wrote on this board. Thanks for that. I'm off to work now and this is going to keep me smiling for the next 10 hours.

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
31-01-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 04:47 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are intellectually dishonest, toad. And I'm calling a Frank Sock puppet.

You do realize, that the second you post this sort of shit, people just stop reading and blow you off, right? You must really enjoy typing to yourself.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 04:39 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 09:35 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 04:47 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are intellectually dishonest, toad. And I'm calling a Frank Sock puppet.

You do realize, that the second you post this sort of shit, people just stop reading and blow you off, right? You must really enjoy typing to yourself.

Obviously not. Since not only do I get quoted, but people agree and expand on it.

Also, you asked -incredulously - which Keynesian predicted the bubble, I gave you an example. Why did you ignore it?

But keep with your dishonesty and ad hominem attacks. It looks good on you.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: