Quit killing capitolism

[Cancel 2016.2]

It was a rule CHANGE. Why in the hell does that matter? In this context loosening regulations results in the same conduct as not enforcing regulations.

And you can find plenty written on the subject with a simple google search. Try it. In the meantime, here's a decent article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html

It matters because DESH stated Bush wasn't enforcing rules. I asked her which ones. Then YOU came in with 'well dis one for starters'. Bottom line, it is NOT a rule he wasn't enforcing. Thus, it has NOTHING to do with what I asked her to provide.

and no... there is a difference between enacting legislation that the banks follow and in allowing banks to break the rules due to lack of enforcement.

It is not up to me to try to guess what Desh was referring to. She put forth the statement, she is more than capable of providing backing on her own.

 

[Bonestorm]

It matters because DESH stated Bush wasn't enforcing rules. I asked her which ones. Then YOU came in with 'well dis one for starters'. Bottom line, it is NOT a rule he wasn't enforcing. Thus, it has NOTHING to do with what I asked her to provide.

and no... there is a difference between enacting legislation that the banks follow and in allowing banks to break the rules due to lack of enforcement.

It is not up to me to try to guess what Desh was referring to. She put forth the statement, she is more than capable of providing backing on her own.

Well, to be more precise, it was a rule change coupled with a lack of enforcement and a move to self-regulation, all part of the Bush Administration philosophy.

You really should read the article before you get all huffy. I know you Republicans like to defend one another but I thought criticism of Bush was acceptable at this juncture. Look, the guy was a disaster. He is on tour doing motivation speaking nowadays. There's no need to reflexively defend him. He's not sweating it. Why should you?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

over regulating capitalism to redistribute wealth is for liberal losers who couldn't make it in the real world.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The conclusions of the article seem not to take into account that capitalism was not always the establishment candidate in global politics.

If anything, it is a triumph for free enterprise that so many people in states that were once entirely command economies have a growing acceptance of this economic system. 80-90% of Germans and Americans agree with the free market in general.

Which, by the way, is the least like an economic system out of any alternative.

It would be hard to doubt that more Russians and Ukrainians agree with capitalism today than over 20 years ago. Mexico, France, and Brazil are paying a harsh price for their socialism, as we all know.

Do you think I take the blue part as bad news because people believe in regulations? The argument between a mostly free market and "a different economic system" (which Democrats publicly say they do not want) is not a matter of passing a few regulations.

Hell, I believe in regulations. But I also believe the regulator needs to be regulated as well.

France is paying a hard price for it's "socialism"? France really isn't the farthest left nation you could mention, but anyway, they do have the second most productive workers per an hour in the world after the US. If they slaved away constantly like us they'd have the same GDP per capita.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Case in point Adam: China. There hybrid system seems to be a more effective system then both Capitalism and Socialism but who would every want America to become that?

So Desh, don't think we would move towards socialism as some grand new America. We would almost definitely follow the new wave china hybrid system. Careful what you wish for.

I don't know. The China system works but since they aren't developed yet, it could just be because it's obviously more efficient than communism, and they're just catching up. Their system basically amounts to enslaving their workers, selling them to the highest bidder, and taxing said workers to give the money back to corporations, though.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm








Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.

Wow. 10% of the people in the US think the fall of the USSR was a bad thing. WTF? I've never met anyone who was literally pro-soviet, even on the internet. I would think it would be hard to find them even if you asked people in the Communist party.

And it's also telling that huge majorities in Russia think that the fall of the USSR was a bad thing. I wonder why that is? They praise Stalin there a lot in the modern age, and it's a little disturbing.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I saw a guy from the Evergreen State College while shopping at the store several months back who was wearing a red shirt with the hammer and popsicle design on it. All I could think of, other than how much his college sucks, was why the hell this asshole is shopping at a store and supporting capitalism with his parents' money. Surely there is plently of farmland in the area that he can live off of for food, etc...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, to be more precise, it was a rule change coupled with a lack of enforcement and a move to self-regulation, all part of the Bush Administration philosophy.

You really should read the article before you get all huffy. I know you Republicans like to defend one another but I thought criticism of Bush was acceptable at this juncture. Look, the guy was a disaster. He is on tour doing motivation speaking nowadays. There's no need to reflexively defend him. He's not sweating it. Why should you?

Idiot....

This has NOTHING to do with the article. Nothing. Desh made a comment about Bush's lack of enforcement. I asked HER what SHE was REFERRING to. Then you butt in on something that was not a lack of enforcement, but a rule change. Which is not the same thing.

I point this out to you and then you pretend I am somehow defending Bush. I am not. I have said time and again that he was horrid. That said, I would like to know what Desh was referring to.

If you don't like the fact that I asked Desh to expand on her comments, then run along somewhere else. If you wish to point out examples of rules he didnt enforce, feel free. But coming on and giving a general comment of 'dat wuz standard bush blah blah blah' does nothing to add to the discussion.

 

[Don Quixote]

neither capitalism nor socialism work - a hybrid of the two is more likely to work but requires an educated public

 

[Canceled2]

Glass Stegall is gone for good and for good reason. The only preblem is when they repealed it they didn't offer the discount window to the Investment Banks which has been corrected. The idea that this mess was caused by the market when the Government owns more than half the Mortgages in the US and the Fed had a 1% interest rate policy is absurd.

Right on! The fact that Interstate Banking changed with emerging technologies meant that certain deregulating was neccessary. The problem was that Congress forced banks to lend to people who were unqualified; and that appropriate regulation to deal with third party lenders was not put in place.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Right on! The fact that Interstate Banking changed with emerging technologies meant that certain deregulating was neccessary. The problem was that Congress forced banks to lend to people who were unqualified; and that appropriate regulation to deal with third party lenders was not put in place.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was important because it kept a natural barrier between the retail banks and the investment banks.

 

[Canceled2]

Wrong. Glass Steagall was important because it kept a natural barrier between the retail banks and the investment banks.

It also prevented a natural exchange of commerce between banks. NOTE: I also stated that what was needed with the deregulation were mechanisms (regulations to safeguard against double dealing self-interests)

I have heard that Glass Steagall like regulations are set to be put back in place minus some of the onerous and outmoded regulating that can prevent such simple things like the use of ATM transactions between banks that we all now take for granted.

 

[Bonestorm]

Idiot....

This has NOTHING to do with the article. Nothing. Desh made a comment about Bush's lack of enforcement. I asked HER what SHE was REFERRING to. Then you butt in on something that was not a lack of enforcement, but a rule change. Which is not the same thing.

I point this out to you and then you pretend I am somehow defending Bush. I am not. I have said time and again that he was horrid. That said, I would like to know what Desh was referring to.

If you don't like the fact that I asked Desh to expand on her comments, then run along somewhere else. If you wish to point out examples of rules he didnt enforce, feel free. But coming on and giving a general comment of 'dat wuz standard bush blah blah blah' does nothing to add to the discussion.

If you read the article, you would have read about the rule change, the LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF NEW REGULATORY AUTHORITY, and the move to self-regulation, which, whether you like it or not, was the central focus of the SEC under Bush.

Personally, I love the fact that you continue to reflexively defend the Bush Administration instead of dealing with the substance of my posts and of the article that I happily provided you after you requested it.

Read the article. Think about if for a few minutes and then get back to me. I realize it's easier for you to pile on Desh than to engage in an actual discussion about the subject. Feel free to do so but don't get all huffy when you get called out for being a typical Republican hack.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If you read the article, you would have read about the rule change, the LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF NEW REGULATORY AUTHORITY, and the move to self-regulation, which, whether you like it or not, was the central focus of the SEC under Bush.

Personally, I love the fact that you continue to reflexively defend the Bush Administration instead of dealing with the substance of my posts and of the article that I happily provided you after you requested it.

Read the article. Think about if for a few minutes and then get back to me. I realize it's easier for you to pile on Desh than to engage in an actual discussion about the subject. Feel free to do so but don't get all huffy when you get called out for being a typical Republican hack.

The SEC has been ineffective for decades. Pretending this was just under Bush is simply sad. The problems escalated back in the mid 90's with Long Term Capital managment, the continued with Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, etc.... right up until Madoff. Was it ineffective under Bush, sure. Just as it was under Clinton and Obama. Thanks.

Now if you would actually allow DESH to address her point that would be nice. I wasn't piling on her. I asked her to expand on her comment so that I would know what she was referring to. You then came to her defense and tried to turn this into a 'why u defending Bush' line of bullshit. I know you are an Obama apologist and are embarrassed by the hack that you have become... which is precisely why you are trying to pretend my position has anything to do with defending Bush.

That is simply you trying to adjust from the severe wedgie Obama gave you when you were bent over trying to kiss his ass.

 

[Topspin]

This was caused by deregulation of the markets.

Bush and team didnt even enforce laws that were left on the books.

Regulation is capitalisms best protector.

I love my fellow lefties, but try to read more. If the gov didn't own all the mortgages and didn't buy the crappy ones this would not have happened.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I love my fellow lefties, but try to read more. If the gov didn't own all the mortgages and didn't buy the crappy ones this would not have happened.

I disagree slightly... it might not have happened to the extent it did, but it would have happened regardless of Freddie and Fannie.

 

[Topspin]

I disagree slightly... it might not have happened to the extent it did, but it would have happened regardless of Freddie and Fannie.

I'll accept that,
I also think Armegedon was not coming if we let them fail. Mainstreet is still on it's knees while the Hamptons sailing crowed has been kept whole.

 

[evince]

If you read the article, you would have read about the rule change, the LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF NEW REGULATORY AUTHORITY, and the move to self-regulation, which, whether you like it or not, was the central focus of the SEC under Bush.

Personally, I love the fact that you continue to reflexively defend the Bush Administration instead of dealing with the substance of my posts and of the article that I happily provided you after you requested it.

Read the article. Think about if for a few minutes and then get back to me. I realize it's easier for you to pile on Desh than to engage in an actual discussion about the subject. Feel free to do so but don't get all huffy when you get called out for being a typical Republican hack.

Thanks for answering him, I had to go do other things.

Just like at the DOJ they approached their oversite in a political manner.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'll accept that,
I also think Armegedon was not coming if we let them fail. Mainstreet is still on it's knees while the Hamptons sailing crowed has been kept whole.

I disagree with that as well. While I find the way the banks (JPM and Goldman especially) pretend they didn't 'need' the bail out and thus it is fine for them to pay out insane bonuses again abhorrent, consumer confidence would have been shaken greatly if they had all fallen. It would have created a mass panic.

 

[Topspin]

I disagree with that as well. While I find the way the banks (JPM and Goldman especially) pretend they didn't 'need' the bail out and thus it is fine for them to pay out insane bonuses again abhorrent, consumer confidence would have been shaken greatly if they had all fallen. It would have created a mass panic.

that's fine, I will never accept the mass panic would cost mainstreet more than it has cost our grandkids to save wall street.

we bailed out wall street bankers with our grandkids money, mainstreet tightened their belts best they could. Maybe the economy would have gone down a good deal more. Then we'd have had a real revocery and not burdened our grandkids with an extra trillion.