Citibank CEO - Banks Need Regulation

[uscitizen]

Who do the banks regulate?

You make a mistake and bounce a check and pay a stiff penalty maybe even jail.

A bank messes up and no foul is called.
Heck the govt even bails em out.
Even the ones that somehow rapidly converted to banks from investment firms.

 

[g5000]

Then you shouldn't have a problem answering it.

Easy-peasy. It is a fallacy of the excluded middle in question form. It is intended to imply the failure of a black state is solely due to the inferiority of the black race.

The question is logic FAIL.

You rad way too much into it. I can point to states run by Asians that meet the criteria. Yet despite the fact that Africa is now ruled entirely by blacks, and we've had black governors and mayors, I cannot find a single entity that reaches the level of competent among them. Every entity run by blacks, and I dont just mean having a black chief executive, has been corrupt and incompetent. I cannot posit a reason for this.
Your answer is a big fail-o.

Of course your limited little nazi mind cannot figure it out. The illogic you continuously demonstrate on this board makes that pretty obvious.

 

[Syphon]

Reasoning not yours, I see.
So what? Paul Ryan is now the ultimate authority? Since when? All you quote are opinions, no facts. You wouldn't know a fact if it butt-fucked you. Not that you'd care.

wait so now youre disagreeing with Paul Ryan, whom the GOP praised for creating the budget that dismantle medicare and is a staunch conservative? wait so professional opinions dont matter anymore? i guess that makes your amateur opinions completely worthless, hence that makes you completely worthless.
now call me more names, and show more of your ignorance. youve already proven that your basically the most ignorant, intolerant, racist, uneducated poster on this board. those names are earning you such plus point, i dont know how im gonna get through the day knowing you called me a dirty name.

This may come as a surprise to you, but not all Republicans walk in lockstep on every issue. I know in Dem Party circles they execute dissenters, like Joe lIeberman. But that's not how it works with us.
What qualified Ryan as an "expert" in economics or banking? More so than Phil Graham, who was an economist before getting elected?
And you calling someone ignorant is a hoot and a half, Elmer.

so you disagree with Ryan, and Gingrich, and the other economists that dont support your narrow view on this subject?

Gingrich Admits Deregulation Of Wall Street In The '90s Was 'Probably A Mistake' | ThinkProgress

Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretaries (Rubin is also a former CEO of Goldman Sachs) championed Gramm–Leach–Bliley (GLB) Act, effectively repealing Glass–Steagall Act, thus allowing the mergers of consumer banks with investment banks furthering the risk of speculation of with people's money. Larry summers later made $20M as a consultant for banks and funds that sold derivatives (Source: Panderer to Power: The Untold Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession - By Frederick J. Sheehan)

http://www.economicpredictions.org/who-is-to-blame-for-the-financial-crisis.htm

The Causes of the Banking Crises of the 1920′s | The World Financial Review

try again, opie....

 

[KissMy]

Citi CEO: Banks need regulation - Video - Business News

hmm banks agreeing banks need to be regulated. interesting....

Well established players in industries always want more regulation to stifle competition.
Or didnt you know that?

Why should we let them bet all our insured deposits on oil going up? Our money is backing their bet that runs up the price we have to pay for gas at the pump. We are not getting fairly compensated for them risking our money to make themselves rich off of screwing us at the pump.

 

[RDD_1210]

Then you shouldn't have a problem answering it.

Easy-peasy. It is a fallacy of the excluded middle in question form. It is intended to imply the failure of a black state is solely due to the inferiority of the black race.

The question is logic FAIL.

You rad way too much into it. I can point to states run by Asians that meet the criteria. Yet despite the fact that Africa is now ruled entirely by blacks, and we've had black governors and mayors, I cannot find a single entity that reaches the level of competent among them. Every entity run by blacks, and I dont just mean having a black chief executive, has been corrupt and incompetent. I cannot posit a reason for this.
Your answer is a big fail-o.

I love that in the same thread you claim you aren't racist and then post shit like this which is the very definition of racism. You're actually insane.

 

[uscitizen]

Easy-peasy. It is a fallacy of the excluded middle in question form. It is intended to imply the failure of a black state is solely due to the inferiority of the black race.

The question is logic FAIL.

You rad way too much into it. I can point to states run by Asians that meet the criteria. Yet despite the fact that Africa is now ruled entirely by blacks, and we've had black governors and mayors, I cannot find a single entity that reaches the level of competent among them. Every entity run by blacks, and I dont just mean having a black chief executive, has been corrupt and incompetent. I cannot posit a reason for this.
Your answer is a big fail-o.

I love that in the same thread you claim you aren't racist and then post shit like this which is the very definition of racism. You're actually insane.

yes you have it figured out.

 

[uscitizen]

The banks are probably wanting a cheap easy way to convert back to an investment firm from a bank.

or to diminish the difference between investment firms and banks even further.

 

[The Rabbi]

Easy-peasy. It is a fallacy of the excluded middle in question form. It is intended to imply the failure of a black state is solely due to the inferiority of the black race.

The question is logic FAIL.

You rad way too much into it. I can point to states run by Asians that meet the criteria. Yet despite the fact that Africa is now ruled entirely by blacks, and we've had black governors and mayors, I cannot find a single entity that reaches the level of competent among them. Every entity run by blacks, and I dont just mean having a black chief executive, has been corrupt and incompetent. I cannot posit a reason for this.
Your answer is a big fail-o.

I love that in the same thread you claim you aren't racist and then post shit like this which is the very definition of racism. You're actually insane.

You dont know what racism is, idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Easy-peasy. It is a fallacy of the excluded middle in question form. It is intended to imply the failure of a black state is solely due to the inferiority of the black race.

The question is logic FAIL.

You rad way too much into it. I can point to states run by Asians that meet the criteria. Yet despite the fact that Africa is now ruled entirely by blacks, and we've had black governors and mayors, I cannot find a single entity that reaches the level of competent among them. Every entity run by blacks, and I dont just mean having a black chief executive, has been corrupt and incompetent. I cannot posit a reason for this.
Your answer is a big fail-o.

Of course your limited little nazi mind cannot figure it out. The illogic you continuously demonstrate on this board makes that pretty obvious.

OK, so you have no answer. You can show that I am idiot pretty easily by pointing to a political entity run by blacks that has been successful in the ways I mention. That would pretty much refute my basic premise.
Instead you'd rather lob ad homs. Maybe you are the racist here?

 

[Toro]

Yes, banks need regulating.

But not all bank regulation is good. Some bank regulation is awful.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, banks need regulating.

But not all bank regulation is good. Some bank regulation is awful.

Why do banks need regulating? I mean over and above the transparencies you'd want for any contract between two parties.

 

[g5000]

You rad way too much into it. I can point to states run by Asians that meet the criteria. Yet despite the fact that Africa is now ruled entirely by blacks, and we've had black governors and mayors, I cannot find a single entity that reaches the level of competent among them. Every entity run by blacks, and I dont just mean having a black chief executive, has been corrupt and incompetent. I cannot posit a reason for this.
Your answer is a big fail-o.

Of course your limited little nazi mind cannot figure it out. The illogic you continuously demonstrate on this board makes that pretty obvious.

OK, so you have no answer. You can show that I am idiot pretty easily by pointing to a political entity run by blacks that has been successful in the ways I mention. That would pretty much refute my basic premise.
Instead you'd rather lob ad homs. Maybe you are the racist here?

So you defend your logical fallacy as not being a logical fallacy by...repeating it!

Genius.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course your limited little nazi mind cannot figure it out. The illogic you continuously demonstrate on this board makes that pretty obvious.

OK, so you have no answer. You can show that I am idiot pretty easily by pointing to a political entity run by blacks that has been successful in the ways I mention. That would pretty much refute my basic premise.
Instead you'd rather lob ad homs. Maybe you are the racist here?

So you defend your logical fallacy as not being a logical fallacy by...repeating it!

Genius.

Please show what logical fallacy is introduced by a question based on fact.
I truly think you are clueless or a racist. Possibly both.

 

[Toro]

Yes, banks need regulating.

But not all bank regulation is good. Some bank regulation is awful.

Why do banks need regulating? I mean over and above the transparencies you'd want for any contract between two parties.

Because banks will leverage themselves up, then collapse. If one bank does it, its not a problem. When lots of banks do it, its a big problem.

 

[whitehall]

The freaking federal government needs regulation. The strange partnership between the federal government and the mortgage industry called "Fannie Mae" ended badly when a democrat head of the House banking committee that had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae told Americans that his little club was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse. Go find Barney Frank who might still be on his honeymoon with his new husband and ask him why in hell he lied to America and why democrats let Frank Raines cook the books while he was CEO of Fannie Mae and walk away with 90 Million dollars for three years work. The banks ain't your problem. Crooked politicians are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, banks need regulating.

But not all bank regulation is good. Some bank regulation is awful.

Why do banks need regulating? I mean over and above the transparencies you'd want for any contract between two parties.

Because banks will leverage themselves up, then collapse. If one bank does it, its not a problem. When lots of banks do it, its a big problem.

Because savvy businessmen like to go out of business? No, I dont think so. They might do that knowing Uncle is going to bail them out. That's what "moral hazard" is all about. And "too big to fail" is the ultimate moral hazard.

 

[editec]

Of course those of us who aren't insane SEE what the effect of failure to properly regulate banks has done ot our economy.

And for the others there's always FAITH BASED economics to fall back on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course those of us who aren't insane SEE what the effect of failure to properly regulate banks has done ot our economy.

And for the others there's always FAITH BASED economics to fall back on.

You don't see jackshit as banks are and have always been very highly regulated institutions. There is no regulation that would have prevented this meltdown short of nationalization.

 

[Toro]

Why do banks need regulating? I mean over and above the transparencies you'd want for any contract between two parties.

Because banks will leverage themselves up, then collapse. If one bank does it, its not a problem. When lots of banks do it, its a big problem.

Because savvy businessmen like to go out of business? No, I dont think so. They might do that knowing Uncle is going to bail them out. That's what "moral hazard" is all about. And "too big to fail" is the ultimate moral hazard.

That's the theory. In practice, it doesn't always work out. If I give you the choice of making $50 million this year but your trades could put the bank out of business within the next three years, especially when you think your trade is relatively low risk, what choice are you going to make? Most take the shot at the $50MM.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because banks will leverage themselves up, then collapse. If one bank does it, its not a problem. When lots of banks do it, its a big problem.

Because savvy businessmen like to go out of business? No, I dont think so. They might do that knowing Uncle is going to bail them out. That's what "moral hazard" is all about. And "too big to fail" is the ultimate moral hazard.

That's the theory. In practice, it doesn't always work out. If I give you the choice of making $50 million this year but your trades could put the bank out of business within the next three years, especially when you think your trade is relatively low risk, what choice are you going to make? Most take the shot at the $50MM.

You base this on what?
In actual fact that isn't what happens. Managers look out for their self interest. And that means continued employment.
In the distant past bank directors were personally on the hook for losses their banks incurred. That really cut down on risky lending.