Deregulation???

[PeterS]

I don't necessarily disagree with you Peter.

I am not fan of Repudlicans either. But I am trying to understand how this wonderful miracle of change is going to take place when the revered agent of change holds contradictory views as a basis of his political and economic philosophy

Our economy over the past 30 years has been built on debt, both public and private. Take away the easy credit for the middle and lower middle and you would see virtually no advancement in quality of life respectively. Any economy that does not advance the quality of life of the majority of those who participate is a failure and if you were to put back in place the credit restrictions of 1980 our economy would fall flat on its face. Yes these policies are a failure because they can only be sustained by debt!

As for the miracle change there won't be one. We have been digging this hole for a long time. But we cannot initiate any type of change so long as we continue with the same economic philosophy. John McCain believes in supply-side trickle down and supply-side trickle down is dependent on debt so we know there will be no change under McCain. Whether you agree fully with Obama or not if you think we need a change in economic philosophy he is the only option...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our economy over the past 30 years has been built on debt, both public and private. Take away the easy credit for the middle and lower middle and you would see virtually no advancement in quality of life respectively. Any economy that does not advance the quality of life of the majority of those who participate is a failure and if you were to put back in place the credit restrictions of 1980 our economy would fall flat on its face. Yes these policies are a failure because they can only be sustained by debt!

As for the miracle change there won't be one. We have been digging this hole for a long time. But we cannot initiate any type of change so long as we continue with the same economic philosophy. John McCain believes in supply-side trickle down and supply-side trickle down is dependent on debt so we know there will be no change under McCain. Whether you agree fully with Obama or not if you think we need a change in economic philosophy he is the only option...

Change for changes sake huh?

It doesn't matter that BHO's raising taxes on businesses and individuals(please at least tell me you realize that there is no way in hell that BHO can pay for all his promises with a few percent tax hike on 5% of the population) slowing recovery rather than speeding it up. It doesn't matter that he doesn't get that there was no deregulation under GW but he says there was. It doesn't matter that his raise taxes mantra and his economic policies are right out of the 1960s and have already failed in France, Germany and England.

None of that matters because it's going to be a change.

 

[Richard-H]

The deregulation frenzy was started by Ronald Reagan.

Clinton, was a very middle-of-the road politician, had he not supported deregulation and free-trade, he never would have been elected. There were very few who opposed deregulation until the current crisis.

Unfortunately, greed is blinding. People do not distinguish between reasonable, fair profit and thievery. Without laws, everyone grabs for all the money they can get their greedy little hands on without regard for ethics or morality. Everyone else is left with the crumbs.

This is the nature of the free market system.

The current economic crisis is the result of two forms of thievery, which should have been illegal, but in the free market, deregulatory atmosphere of the times, government failed to outlaw these: Sub-Prime Mortgages and Credit Default Swaps.

The only reason why we are questioning these two financial instrumrnts is that due to a very unusual set of circumstances, these financial instruments backfired upon the thieves.

How many more financial mechanisms exist that are legal, but de facto forms of thievery?
Day trading? Selling short? Hedge Funds?

The entire financial industry exists for the sole purpose of grabbing all the money they can, while making as little contribution to society as possible.

While many people may argue that a 'buyer beware' philosophy is justified, I believe that, ideally, professionals in all feilds should be guided by ethics. Unfortunately, since 'ethics' are just a de facto con, only laws can provide the protection needed.

Ask yourself this:

"Is it O.K. for a doctor to knowingly recommend an unneccesary operation and justify it by saying that it's the patients obligation to know enough about medical facts?"

Obviously not. Why then, should mortgage customers be obligated to be experts on mortgages and mortgage brokers be free to sell them whatever they can?

I'd love to live in a world where people were honest, trustworthy, fair and conducted business ethically. But as long as I'm on this planet:

I hope the goverment regulates the living shit out of the stock markets and the financial and mortgage industries!

 

[Skull Pilot]

So how do you ameliorate the federal reserve's role in this?

A question stands that had the fed not suppressed interest rates to below zero after inflation, would deregulation alone have caused this mess. If the fed required that brokerages raise their margin rates would the bubble have got so large.....

This was a confluence of events IMO the fed has a larger part of the blame to shoulder than does deregulation

 

[editec]

This so called unanwered question has been answered over and over again.

It isn't out problem if you didn't like the answers, Skull.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually the original question asked in this thread was

Does BHO want to end the deregulatory changes enacted under his and your hero Bill Clinton???

Again I ask how does Clintons major deregulation ease the burdens of the current economy and GW's lack of deregulation cause the current problems?

And I haven't gotten an answer to it.

 

[PeterS]

Change for changes sake huh?

If something isn’t working you change. This is not change for change sake but change due to the poor policies of the past.

It doesn't matter that BHO's raising taxes on businesses and individuals

No it doesn’t matter that Obama is proposing raising taxes. This is our government and we should have the expectation of paying for it. My only problem is that Obama isn’t proposing raising taxes on everyone.

please at least tell me you realize that there is no way in hell that BHO can pay for all his promises with a few percent tax hike on 5% of the population) slowing recovery rather than speeding it up.

You will at least cover part of the cost and it is better than running the program purely on debt. As for slowing the economy down if that is the cost for health care then so be it.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't get that there was no deregulation under GW but he says there was.

You think it does? Honest to fricking god if I am to pick a reason to vote for McCain, or someone else, it is this? Obama has intellectual curiosity which is something we have been lacking for the past 8 years and would continue to lack under McCain. I could give a frick on how either party is playing the blame game though I do find it quite humorous that conservatives have suddenly become so pro regulation.

It doesn't matter that his raise taxes mantra and his economic policies are right out of the 1960s and have already failed in France, Germany and England.

You forget that they were also the policy of the 90's and you neglect to note that the two longest periods of economic growth history occurred during the 60's and 90's. Since you are so concerned with economic growth I think that should be noted don't you...

 

[Skull Pilot]

If something isn’t working you change. This is not change for change sake but change due to the poor policies of the past.



No it doesn’t matter that Obama is proposing raising taxes. This is our government and we should have the expectation of paying for it. My only problem is that Obama isn’t proposing raising taxes on everyone.



You will at least cover part of the cost and it is better than running the program purely on debt. As for slowing the economy down if that is the cost for health care then so be it.



You think it does? Honest to fricking god if I am to pick a reason to vote for McCain, or someone else, it is this? Obama has intellectual curiosity which is something we have been lacking for the past 8 years and would continue to lack under McCain. I could give a frick on how either party is playing the blame game though I do find it quite humorous that conservatives have suddenly become so pro regulation.



You forget that they were also the policy of the 90's and you neglect to note that the two longest periods of economic growth history occurred during the 60's and 90's. Since you are so concerned with economic growth I think that should be noted don't you...

I should have said radical 60s philosophy

You do know that the prosperity of the 60's was a direct result of lowering income taxes right?

 

[PheloniusRM]

Skull Pilot: you do realize that the Commodities Futures Modernization Act was a tiny amendment added at the last minute by Phill Gramm, to a massive spending bill that Bill Clinton signed. That amendment included the so called Enron loop hole. Basically it allowed energy futures and other securities to be traded in unregulated markets.

The subprime mortguage market as of 2007 is 1.3 trillion$. The Credit Default Swap market as of 2007 is 68 trillion$.

I hope you don't honestly believe that Clinton signed the massive Omnibus spending bill knowing the full details of the CFMA amendment and its repercussions.

If you believe that a massive Insurance company like AIG who is the major player in a 68 trillion dollar market is imploding because of defaults on sub prime mortguages by less than 30% of the people in a 1.3 trillion dollar market, then I'd like to sell you some beach front property in Florida.

 

[PeterS]

I should have said radical 60s philosophy

You do know that the prosperity of the 60's was a direct result of lowering income taxes right?

It was? Hey I would argue the economic stimulus from the Space race and the Vietnam war as major drivers plus there was heavy input from government R&D in general and the major increase to productivity attributed to all those college graduates who poured in to industry during the 50's and 60's courtesy of the GI Bill. In fact, of all the events that can be attributable to the growth of the 60's I would say governments investment in education probably produced the greatest long term economic payout. As for the tax cut itself sense it wouldn't have been fully implemented until 65 and the economy went into decline in 69 that wouldn't have been much of an economic stimulus would it...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull Pilot: you do realize that the Commodities Futures Modernization Act was a tiny amendment added at the last minute by Phill Gramm, to a massive spending bill that Bill Clinton signed. That amendment included the so called Enron loop hole. Basically it allowed energy futures and other securities to be traded in unregulated markets.

The subprime mortguage market as of 2007 is 1.3 trillion$. The Credit Default Swap market as of 2007 is 68 trillion$.

I hope you don't honestly believe that Clinton signed the massive Omnibus spending bill knowing the full details of the CFMA amendment and its repercussions.

If you believe that a massive Insurance company like AIG who is the major player in a 68 trillion dollar market is imploding because of defaults on sub prime mortguages by less than 30% of the people in a 1.3 trillion dollar market, then I'd like to sell you some beach front property in Florida.

that act erased the line between, banks, insurance and investment firms,

And exempted the new entities that sprung up from it from anti trust laws

And the sub prime feedeing frenzy started under Clinton as far back as 95

Dissent Magazine

By 1995, the subprime loan market had reached $90 billion in loan volume, and it then doubled over the next three years. Rising loan volume led to a significant deterioration in loan quality. Meanwhile, by March 1998, the number of subprime lenders grew from a small handful to more than fifty. Ten of the twenty-five largest subprime lenders were affiliated with federally chartered bank holding companies, but federal bank regulators remained unconcerned.


the stock bubble in 2000:

By Clinton’s final year in office, the price-earnings ratio on technology stocks reached historic peaks and the level of margin debt borrowed from New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) member firms had risen to the highest percent of market value in twenty-five years. The last time the country had purchased so much stock on borrowed money was September 1987, one month before the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 23 percent in one day.

We are merely reaping our rewards of leveraging credit.
An economy based on debt doesn't work.

And tell me what deregulation did GW enact that made this mess worse? And what did the deregulation that Clinton signed into law do to make it better?

Not spending, not the war, not the stimulus.

Dimmies are crying that GW's deregulation caused this mess I am just asking them to show me waht deregulation and how it made things worse.

 

[Paulie]

It was? Hey I would argue the economic stimulus from the Space race and the Vietnam war as major drivers plus there was heavy input from government R&D in general and the major increase to productivity attributed to all those college graduates who poured in to industry during the 50's and 60's courtesy of the GI Bill. In fact, of all the events that can be attributable to the growth of the 60's I would say governments investment in education probably produced the greatest long term economic payout. As for the tax cut itself sense it wouldn't have been fully implemented until 65 and the economy went into decline in 69 that wouldn't have been much of an economic stimulus would it...

I'd argue the boom and bust from the 60's to the 70's was due to the interest rate manipulation by the Fed. Early 60's, interest rate near 1%. Of course, a subsequent boom. Rates raised by the end of the decade to near 10%, and a subsequent bust.

It's the same fucking shit every single time. But let's just keep blaming things on deregulation and taxes.

 

[Bern80]

That IS only part of the truth.

Had there been not NINAs, and no ARMS, there's have been no problem either.

It was a lack of regulation preventing this risky practice.

It would not have mattered how cheap the money was, if the banks hadn't been allowed to offer those insane mortgages.

There would be no meltdown, EITHER, if banks had been prevented, by regulation, from GAMBLING on derivatives, too.

There was a time when banks charters prvented them from take such risks, you know.

We changed the laws to allow banks to go into the gambling business, folks.

Those laws were in effect after the great depression because it was banks gambling which caused that depression, just as banks gambling is what is causing this drpesssion which we've just paid $1.4 trillion to prevent.

You seem to only understand half the story, Paul.

Why is that?

This argument doesn't really work as. You only seem to understand part of the problem yourself. One can just as easily argue the flip side of your argument. If individuals and had taken a little time to see the inherent risks in the money they were barrowing and evaluated if they could afford such a risk we would not be in this mess either.

Again you fail to recognize the behavior of individuals as parts of a problem with yet another victim mentality post.

 

[Paulie]

This argument doesn't really work as. You only seem to understand part of the problem yourself. One can just as easily argue the flip side of your argument. If individuals and had taken a little time to see the inherent risks in the money they were barrowing and evaluated if they could afford such a risk we would not be in this mess either.

Again you fail to recognize the behavior of individuals as parts of a problem with yet another victim mentality post.

This is the biggest argument against dereg being the problem. Why should people not be held responsible for the stupid decisions they made?

Rather than us becoming smarter as a society and learning how to manage our money properly, we should instead be insulated from having to worry about it by having regulations that keep us from making our own informed decisions.

Why bother teaching your kid how to use the potty, when you can just let them wear diapers for the rest of their life?

 

[Care4all]

This is the biggest argument against dereg being the problem. Why should people not be held responsible for the stupid decisions they made?

Rather than us becoming smarter as a society and learning how to manage our money properly, we should instead be insulated from having to worry about it by having regulations that keep us from making our own informed decisions.

Why bother teaching your kid how to use the potty, when you can just let them wear diapers for the rest of their life?

due to the lack of transparency in our system it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of us to be thoroughly informed.

It was the DUTY of the banks thru their charters to thoroughly, not in fine print, but to thoroughly inform their borrowers of all of their options and what these options and loans really mean, in SIMPLE, UNDERSTANDABLE terms.

it also is the duty of these agencies to dig in to the nitty gritty to inform us stock holders of the behind the scenes actions of the companies we plan to invest in....and the rating of such things WAS considered to be the strength and information needed to keep a trustful stock market flourishing...

ALL of this fell by the wayside.

 

[Paulie]

due to the lack of transparency in our system it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of us to be thoroughly informed.

It was the DUTY of the banks thru their charters to thoroughly, not in fine print, but to thoroughly inform their borrowers of all of their options and what these options and loans really mean, in SIMPLE, UNDERSTANDABLE terms.

it also is the duty of these agencies to dig in to the nitty gritty to inform us stock holders of the behind the scenes actions of the companies we plan to invest in....and the rating of such things WAS considered to be the strength and information needed to keep a trustful stock market flourishing...

ALL of this fell by the wayside.

Care, even if I agreed with that, I'd still offer up the old addage of "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is".

You'd have to be a complete moron to think that somehow you're going to get over on the banks by taking a subprime mortgage. They wouldn't be offering it if it wasn't in their favor.

And you can't tell me that people couldn't have been more informed. There's no way that an asset's value can raise to infinity. At some point, those valuations have to come back down to earth. People gambled on the possibility that house values would just keep climbing, while the market was being flooded with buyers.

Come on, Care! Banks shouldn't have to tell you that, you should just do a little economic history reading and figure it out on your own!

I mean, it was only a couple years before that, where we witnessed that being the case, with the tech-stock bubble. People thought tech stock values would never come down, and look how many people lost their asses.

We should have been more defensive about it, but because the greed is inside ALL of us, not just the corporate board rooms, we were duped and we LOST.

Sorry Care, there was nothing the banks or the government needed to tell you, that you shouldn't have already known.

When you go to sign a home mortgage, you owe it to yourself to be armed with information. If the banks themselves aren't willing to provide it to you, then you hire a financial advisor that you trust, to read over your agreement and make sure it's in your best interest.

You're trying to take the easy way out and push the blame off on someone else. The blame lies with EVERYONE.

 

[Bern80]

due to the lack of transparency in our system it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of us to be thoroughly informed.

It was the DUTY of the banks thru their charters to thoroughly, not in fine print, but to thoroughly inform their borrowers of all of their options and what these options and loans really mean, in SIMPLE, UNDERSTANDABLE terms.

it also is the duty of these agencies to dig in to the nitty gritty to inform us stock holders of the behind the scenes actions of the companies we plan to invest in....and the rating of such things WAS considered to be the strength and information needed to keep a trustful stock market flourishing...

ALL of this fell by the wayside.

It is truly amazing how the excuses never end. Try just once to take a modicum of personal responsibility. Get into the habit of asking asking FIRST, how did I contribute to the situation I'm in?. THAT is one of the biggest problems. Not government regulation or deregulation, not transparancy, not Bush, not Clinton. The problem is people like you who will make every excuse under the sun before holding yourself accountable.

It doesn't take transparency to know that markets cycle and that if you are getting a below avg interest rate now for your home, it is going to go up. It isn't rocket science that when you're dealing with a lender you're essentially dealing with a salesman thus a little independant evaluation may be required.


You want solutions to the problem? Paulitics and I are telling you the easiest one by far to implement. Educate yourself and quit making excuses. At least quit making them first.

 

[Paulie]

it also is the duty of these agencies to dig in to the nitty gritty to inform us stock holders of the behind the scenes actions of the companies we plan to invest in....and the rating of such things WAS considered to be the strength and information needed to keep a trustful stock market flourishing...

It is not anyone's DUTY to inform you of the strength of the company you plan to invest in, besides whoever you might be PAYING to do so.

If you lost money on your 401k, for instance, you could have just as easily moved your money out of stocks and into treasuries or precious metals, something safer during these times.

How is it not your own fault that you made a bad investment decision? If you paid someone for their services, and they were wrong, then that's the nature of the game. You lived, you learned, and now you won't be using them anymore for advice. That's the free market in action.

I'll tell you one thing that's for sure. If you keep using the mainstream media as an investment guide, you're going to find yourself FUCKED.

Think for yourself.

 

[Care4all]

It is not anyone's DUTY to inform you of the strength of the company you plan to invest in, besides whoever you might be PAYING to do so.

If you lost money on your 401k, for instance, you could have just as easily moved your money out of stocks and into treasuries or precious metals, something safer during these times.

How is it not your own fault that you made a bad investment decision? If you paid someone for their services, and they were wrong, then that's the nature of the game. You lived, you learned, and now you won't be using them anymore for advice. That's the free market in action.

I'll tell you one thing that's for sure. If you keep using the mainstream media as an investment guide, you're going to find yourself FUCKED.

Think for yourself.

it is the duty to make things transparent so that we CAN make an informed decision...

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that all of us would have continued to put our money in the stock market and in to the companies that were playing hide and go seek with their true financial standings and let ourselves to be screwed from here to high heaven on our 401k investments?

I don't think we are that stupid, there was a TRUST in our government regulatory system and a TRUST in the companies that rated the stocks we were buying....

otherwise we would NOT have just set ourselves up for this crash....and losing 40% of the value of our 401k's...

and the money market managers, who had fiduciary responsibilities to us, would not have continued to put our monies in to unsafe companies and stocks....if this transparency was there imo.

 

[Paulie]

it is the duty to make things transparent so that we CAN make an informed decision...

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that all of us would have continued to put our money in the stock market and in to the companies that were playing hide and go seek with their true financial standings and let ourselves to be screwed from here to high heaven on our 401k investments?

I don't think we are that stupid, there was a TRUST in our government regulatory system and a TRUST in the companies that rated the stocks we were buying....

otherwise we would NOT have just set ourselves up for this crash....and losing 40% of the value of our 401k's...

and the money market managers, who had fiduciary responsibilities to us, would not have continued to put our monies in to unsafe companies and stocks....if this transparency was there imo.

What "transparency"?

You can't look at a simple balance sheet and realize that a company is too downside risk-heavy?

Whether you are signing your life away on a home mortgage, or allocating your wealth in your investment portfolio, you owe it to yourself to LEARN how to understand a balance sheet, or how to know if your potential mortgage bank is solvent or not.

Those failed national banks were well on their way to insolvency before the housing boom.

When you say "trust", what you really mean is "rely". People didn't TRUST government to watch their backs, they RELIED on government. That's where they went wrong. The government does not have a responsibility to make sure you make all the right decisions in life.

Why do you not understand that? Why would you not rather have the freedom to fail or succeed based on your own informed, responsible decisions?