"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 06:25 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(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.

Bingo!

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, 04:42 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
My thoughts of the deregulation of the banks in glass s was a mistake.

Insurance should stay insurance, bank stay bask and broker dealers stay broker dealers. Different companies not under the same parent company.

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, 07:00 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 06:25 AM)BnW Wrote:  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... 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.

Do you like your crow spicy or mild? Here's the voting record. You can see the lone libertarian in Congress, Ron Paul, was one of the few who voted No. Ron Paul wrote: “As long as the Federal Reserve is the lender of last resort and there are guarantees from FDIC, the risks and loses will be transferred to the taxpayer.”

In a later interview he said:

“I voted on the Glass-Steagal change and I voted against it. The free market though would not have a Glass-Steagal. Banks could do what they want and they have to suffer the consequence. The reason I voted against it, that bill did have some bad parts to it, but one of the reasons I argued against it, repealing it, it was that it was going to put a greater burden on the banks and the taxpayer was at risk, at greater risk through the FDIC and other insurance programs of the government. So I saw that as a greater burden on the taxpayer and voted against it. .”

Peter Schiff, a libertarian economist, also wrote that a financial mess was inevitable when banks were allowed to make risky investments and pass any losses on to the taxpayer.

So, it's ironic that you guys always say libertarians are ideological, when in this case, they were AGAINST deregulation because it presented perverse incentives and conflicts of interest. That's the opposite of ideological--it's pragmatic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
31-01-2014, 07:23 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
I did forget that Paul voted against Gramm–Leach–Bliley. The focus is always in the Senate vote, which was 97 - 0. He was one of very few people on the libertarian side who voted against it. He was right in that instance, though. It was a giant clusterfuck to take away those protections. And, with Greenspan feeding the monster with cheap money and fighting any and all attempts to regulate, plus that he already showed he would bail out banks when he bailed out Long Term Capital Management in 1998 it was an absolute formula for exactly what ended up happening. But, this "we" you speak out - that didn't exist. Paul was a voice in the wilderness on that one, but he was spot on.

Btw, fwiw, I don't mind Paul. I don't agree with him on everything but I have more respect for him than I do for 99.999% of everyone else in government. There are probably a total of 5 or 6 elected people I actually have any respect for. They are:
1. Ron Paul
2. Darrell Issa
3. Tom Coburn
4. Dennis Kucinich
5. Bernie Sanders

How's that for a mix and match of political ideology.

cathym - you think repealing glass steagle was a mistak? You're really out on a limb there, my friend. It was a massive mistake. From an economic perspective it was the shot-hear-round-the-world kind of mistake. It was the mistake of all mistakes. Just as an example (and I'm working only from memory here so please don't hold me to the exact numbers), at the time it nearly took down the entire global economy, AIG Financial Products generated under 20% of AIG's total revenues and carried over 80% of their total risk. They were massively under capitalized, something that never could have happened if they were just an insurance company. And, if they went down they would have left a smoldering wasteland in their wake. Something had to be done. Of course, as usual, our government picked the worst of all possible options and created the single largest moral hazzard in the history of mankind.

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
31-01-2014, 07:50 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 07:23 PM)BnW Wrote:  I did forget that Paul voted against Gramm–Leach–Bliley. The focus is always in the Senate vote, which was 97 - 0. He was one of very few people on the libertarian side who voted against it. He was right in that instance, though. It was a giant clusterfuck to take away those protections. And, with Greenspan feeding the monster with cheap money and fighting any and all attempts to regulate, plus that he already showed he would bail out banks when he bailed out Long Term Capital Management in 1998 it was an absolute formula for exactly what ended up happening. But, this "we" you speak out - that didn't exist. Paul was a voice in the wilderness on that one, but he was spot on.

Btw, fwiw, I don't mind Paul. I don't agree with him on everything but I have more respect for him than I do for 99.999% of everyone else in government. There are probably a total of 5 or 6 elected people I actually have any respect for. They are:
1. Ron Paul
2. Darrell Issa
3. Tom Coburn
4. Dennis Kucinich
5. Bernie Sanders

How's that for a mix and match of political ideology.

cathym - you think repealing glass steagle was a mistak? You're really out on a limb there, my friend. It was a massive mistake. From an economic perspective it was the shot-hear-round-the-world kind of mistake. It was the mistake of all mistakes. Just as an example (and I'm working only from memory here so please don't hold me to the exact numbers), at the time it nearly took down the entire global economy, AIG Financial Products generated under 20% of AIG's total revenues and carried over 80% of their total risk. They were massively under capitalized, something that never could have happened if they were just an insurance company. And, if they went down they would have left a smoldering wasteland in their wake. Something had to be done. Of course, as usual, our government picked the worst of all possible options and created the single largest moral hazzard in the history of mankind.

BnW - I don't understand what you are saying. Yes. It was a huge mistake.i think I was clear when I said that. I dunno. I've had at least 3 glasses of wine so maybe I was misunderstood when I said banks should remain to be banks, insurance should remain insurance and the Broker Dealers should stay broker dealers.

Why am I going out on a limb by saying that? Since it appears you agree...


I just looked back at my drunken post. I meant to say tht I think the deregulation and repeal of G-S was a mistake.

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, 07:53 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 07:23 PM)BnW Wrote:  Btw, fwiw, I don't mind Paul. I don't agree with him on everything but I have more respect for him than I do for 99.999% of everyone else in government.

Here we're in agreement. I can't stand most of the right-wing nuts / tea partiers who keep calling themselves "libertarians", when all they are is 'anti-government', and don't even know what the word liberty means. Classic liberals (ie the "real" libertarians) are PRO government--they just see the government as having a different role--blocking the initiation of force, rather than creating it, ie defending minorities from the majority, rather than forcing the will of the majority on minorities.

Ron Paul is the exact opposite of me in every possible way. He's a religious, right-wing, conservative. However, he's also the only politician I've ever really cared for because of his integrity and insistence that his opinions were just that, and he'd never force them on anybody. The perfect example was during the Iowa straw poll, when the GOP required all candidates to pledge support for a ban on gay marriage. Ron Paul is as homophobic as they come (see this hillarious clip from Bruno (ie Borat). He's said he believes it's a sin. Sex is only allowed between a man and wife, etc. But, he was the only candidate who not only refused to back a ban on same-sex marriage, he said if President he'd veto such a ban because it's unconstitutional. Back then, even Obama and most of the Dems were still officially anti-gay marriage. He knew he'd be boycotted by the GOP for taking that stand (and he was), but it was more important to do the right thing, even if it meant defending an unpopular group of people he couldn't stand. He was also the only one that stood up against corporate interests and refused to be persuaded by lobbying.

I'd rather vote for somebody who is principled, honest and has integrity, but is the opposite of me in every way, than someone who thinks just like me, but is a typical politician.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 08:04 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 07:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I just looked back at my drunken post. I meant to say tht I think the deregulation and repeal of G-S was a mistake.

Cathy, we agree on that, then. The difference between us is the 'why' and 'what should we do instead'.

For thousands of years, banks have practiced fractional reserve banking, taking on huge risks, gambling with their depositors money, and ultimately collapsing during bank runs, sending the economy into a panic. It happened back in the 1800's before the Fed existed, while on a gold standard. So, I understand the natural desire to have 'the full faith and credit' of the government guarantee banks, to insure depositors security. HOWEVER, I would say that in order to get that guarantee, the banks must agree to a system of full reserve banking, so the risk to the taxpayers is as minimal as possible. Of course, the banks hate this idea, and prefer the current system where the government lets them take all the risk they want, and if they win, they keep it, and when they lose, there's a central bank that can just credit their reserve accounts with trillions of dollars, effectively instantly transferring massive amounts of wealth from the taxpayers to the banks to keep them profitable. It's obviously no surprise that after the banks were near collapse in 2008 due to their own stupidity, the Fed injected trillions in QE, and, gosh, what a surprise, within a couple years the banks were posting record profits. Obviously they didn't create new wealth--after the QE we have just as much land, factories, buildings, etc. as before. The wealth got shifted around--to the banks.

IMO, the people are less aware of it now than before. When the Federal Reserve was first architected, it was done in a super secret meeting between all the big bankers in a hidden enclave, Jekyll Island, where they all used aliases and code words so that the staff wouldn't leak to the press what they were doing since, back then, the people knew that a central bank was a tool to transfer wealth from the public to the banks. Congress duped the public into thinking the system originated with them, and the Jekyll Island history was dismissed as a conspiracy theory until later evidence proved that's what happened. Now, however, the banks don't need to hide what they're doing. They just transfer massive wealth to themselves openly, and the public goes along with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
31-01-2014, 10:05 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 07:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  BnW - I don't understand what you are saying. Yes. It was a huge mistake.i think I was clear when I said that. I dunno. I've had at least 3 glasses of wine so maybe I was misunderstood when I said banks should remain to be banks, insurance should remain insurance and the Broker Dealers should stay broker dealers.

Why am I going out on a limb by saying that? Since it appears you agree...

I speak two languages: English and Sarcasm. My comment was the latter, but confused you because it was written in the former.

Or, maybe I just stopped drinking too early tonight. Been a long week.

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
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
31-01-2014, 11:09 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 07:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here we're in agreement. I can't stand most of the right-wing nuts / tea partiers who keep calling themselves "libertarians", when all they are is 'anti-government', and don't even know what the word liberty means. Classic liberals (ie the "real" libertarians) are PRO government--they just see the government as having a different role--blocking the initiation of force, rather than creating it, ie defending minorities from the majority, rather than forcing the will of the majority on minorities.

Tend to agree. It's terribly frustrating being a classical liberal (aka libertarian in modern lingo), when you have Talibanistic mercantilists running around claiming they're libertarians.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(31-01-2014 10:05 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 07:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  BnW - I don't understand what you are saying. Yes. It was a huge mistake.i think I was clear when I said that. I dunno. I've had at least 3 glasses of wine so maybe I was misunderstood when I said banks should remain to be banks, insurance should remain insurance and the Broker Dealers should stay broker dealers.

Why am I going out on a limb by saying that? Since it appears you agree...

I speak two languages: English and Sarcasm. My comment was the latter, but confused you because it was written in the former.

Or, maybe I just stopped drinking too early tonight. Been a long week.

I think there should be a sarcasm font.

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: