Free marketeer admits regulation is key

[The Rabbi]

Without greed we would have no need for anything except someone to hand us our food. Of course no one would be around to do that because there would be no money.

I am amazed at the protestations against "greed" that come up again and again. Greed, the desire for money, is the motivating factor in any economy. And that includes the communist ones. Look at the things around you as you read this. Every one of them got to where it was because someone, somewhere, wanted to make money and get rich. And you benefitted from all that greed.
So those decrying greed are merely ungrateful bastards.

What a crock of shit. Greed is not what you.ve defined it as.

People have become wealthy by performing or inventing, etc...not because they were chasing an accumulation of money, but other things.
Working for money to buy things is not greed.

you need to check back into recovery

And youneed to get your head out of your ass.
People take tremendous risks to start and acquire and run businesses because they hope to get rich, very rich. If that isn't greed, I don't know what it is. If that isn't good, I don't know what is.

 

[antagon]

ATLANTA - Regulatory failure, not low interest rates, was responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis of the last decade, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said in a speech on Sunday.
Mr. Bernanke's remarks, perhaps his strongest language yet assessing the roots of the financial

oops...

yep they passed regulations requiring banks to make high risk loans an lower the requirements it happened in the 70's and 80's and 90's......guess what they just put the regulations back where they were .... pre 70's.....no more no money down loans with no checking financial statments.....

hook line and sinker. there's no basis to your claim that banks were required to issue no money down loans with no debtor scrutiny. but we'll chalk that up to bad humor.


“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.” - bill buckley, jr.


i dont think the CRA out-played the interest rates in this crash. that is a half-ass smokescreen, despite your having fallen for it.

how do you defend that when private enterprises have been outed with their own ambitions to exploit the sub-prime sector?

the low rates created a demand bubble. do you deny that entirely? and if you are remotely in touch with the realities of the boom round '05, are you actually making the point that the CRA, suddenly, took hold sufficient to outshine private market behavior?

i doubt bernake was talking about the CRA, anyhow. ya think he could have been referring to derivatives regs?

you, too, frank. you're both welcomed to show your asses on this.

 

[Anguille]

oops...

Too bad Bernanke can't regulate credit card, pawn shop and payday lender interest rates.

Without greed we'd have no need for regulation.

Bernanke and the FED do not regulate financial industries like credit cards and check cashing....

Duh!

 

[Anguille]

Without greed we would have no need for anything except someone to hand us our food. Of course no one would be around to do that because there would be no money.

I am amazed at the protestations against "greed" that come up again and again. Greed, the desire for money, is the motivating factor in any economy. And that includes the communist ones. Look at the things around you as you read this. Every one of them got to where it was because someone, somewhere, wanted to make money and get rich. And you benefitted from all that greed.
So those decrying greed are merely ungrateful bastards.

What a crock of shit. Greed is not what you.ve defined it as.

People have become wealthy by performing or inventing, etc...not because they were chasing an accumulation of money, but other things.
Working for money to buy things is not greed.

you need to check back into recovery

And youneed to get your head out of your ass.
People take tremendous risks to start and acquire and run businesses because they hope to get rich, very rich. If that isn't greed, I don't know what it is. If that isn't good, I don't know what is.

You are very limited in understanding the motivations of people other than yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What a crock of shit. Greed is not what you.ve defined it as.

People have become wealthy by performing or inventing, etc...not because they were chasing an accumulation of money, but other things.
Working for money to buy things is not greed.

you need to check back into recovery

And youneed to get your head out of your ass.
People take tremendous risks to start and acquire and run businesses because they hope to get rich, very rich. If that isn't greed, I don't know what it is. If that isn't good, I don't know what is.

Many people start businesses to make a decent living.

Most businesses fail, and I suggest that is because getting rich is no sort of a business plan.

I've worked for myself many times. I know many others who have. Most didn't do so in order to get rich.

seek help...quickly. you appear to be coming apart at the seams

 

[The Rabbi]

What a crock of shit. Greed is not what you.ve defined it as.

People have become wealthy by performing or inventing, etc...not because they were chasing an accumulation of money, but other things.
Working for money to buy things is not greed.

you need to check back into recovery

And youneed to get your head out of your ass.
People take tremendous risks to start and acquire and run businesses because they hope to get rich, very rich. If that isn't greed, I don't know what it is. If that isn't good, I don't know what is.

Many people start businesses to make a decent living.

Most businesses fail, and I suggest that is because getting rich is no sort of a business plan.

I've worked for myself many times. I know many others who have. Most didn't do so in order to get rich.

seek help...quickly. you appear to be coming apart at the seams

Thank you for contradicting yourself, in the same post.
And now we bring you back to planet earth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And youneed to get your head out of your ass.
People take tremendous risks to start and acquire and run businesses because they hope to get rich, very rich. If that isn't greed, I don't know what it is. If that isn't good, I don't know what is.

Many people start businesses to make a decent living.

Most businesses fail, and I suggest that is because getting rich is no sort of a business plan.

I've worked for myself many times. I know many others who have. Most didn't do so in order to get rich.

seek help...quickly. you appear to be coming apart at the seams

Thank you for contradicting yourself, in the same post.
And now we bring you back to planet earth.

your inability or refusal (denial), to understand the simple meaning of 'greed' is sad.

 

[Oddball]

No less sad than your refusal to admit that the Chairman and board members of the biggest currency monopoly in the history of mankind aren't anywhere near "free marketeers".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No less sad than your refusal to admit that the Chairman and board members of the biggest currency monopoly in the history of mankind aren't anywhere near "free marketeers".

If you want me to take a purist approach, sure people like Bernanke, are not free marketeers, but the purist appraoch is not only unrealistic, it is....uhm...unrealistic. It is a philosophical argument that ignores how a free marketeer can perform in a realist way within the system we have. No one is going to abandon the system we have now for a purely free market system, because the cross over alone would cause havoc.

Monoplies in capitalist systems are not inherently bad or anathema to a free market based economy. The trade off for what we have now is, reality. Society works better and gets a better product with regulated monopolies in certain areas. All monopoliea re not equal, and no one like Bernanke is advocationg others become monopolies.

Plus, Bernanke was in charge of money supply, not in charge of the regulation of specific financial industries.

 

[antagon]

No less sad than your refusal to admit that the Chairman and board members of the biggest currency monopoly in the history of mankind aren't anywhere near "free marketeers".

If you want me to take a purist approach, sure people like Bernanke, are not free marketeers, but the purist appraoch is not only unrealistic, it is....uhm...unrealistic. It is a philosophical argument that ignores how a free marketeer can perform in a realist way within the system we have. No one is going to abandon the system we have now for a purely free market system, because the cross over alone would cause havoc.

Monoplies in capitalist systems are not inherently bad or anathema to a free market based economy. The trade off for what we have now is, reality. Society works better and gets a better product with regulated monopolies in certain areas. All monopoliea re not equal, and no one like Bernanke is advocationg others become monopolies.

Plus, Bernanke was in charge of money supply, not in charge of the regulation of specific financial industries.

the dollar = the monopoly = a good thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No less sad than your refusal to admit that the Chairman and board members of the biggest currency monopoly in the history of mankind aren't anywhere near "free marketeers".

If you want me to take a purist approach, sure people like Bernanke, are not free marketeers, but the purist appraoch is not only unrealistic, it is....uhm...unrealistic. It is a philosophical argument that ignores how a free marketeer can perform in a realist way within the system we have. No one is going to abandon the system we have now for a purely free market system, because the cross over alone would cause havoc.

Monoplies in capitalist systems are not inherently bad or anathema to a free market based economy. The trade off for what we have now is, reality. Society works better and gets a better product with regulated monopolies in certain areas. All monopoliea re not equal, and no one like Bernanke is advocationg others become monopolies.

Plus, Bernanke was in charge of money supply, not in charge of the regulation of specific financial industries.

That's the point, however. A definition is what it is. You can't say a chair isn't a chair and anyone who disagrees is just a purist. A free market is a free market, not a mixed market with someone artificially setting interest rates, messing with the supply of money, and bailing out their banker buddies.

 

[Shogun]

someone catch that free market before it runs into the bushes!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you want me to take a purist approach, sure people like Bernanke, are not free marketeers, but the purist appraoch is not only unrealistic, it is....uhm...unrealistic. It is a philosophical argument that ignores how a free marketeer can perform in a realist way within the system we have...

Monoplies in capitalist systems are not inherently bad or anathema to a free market based economy. .. All monopoliea re not equal, and no one like Bernanke is advocationg others become monopolies.

Plus, Bernanke was in charge of money supply, not in charge of the regulation of specific financial industries.

That's the point, however. A definition is what it is.

And I always say IT is about definitions. When most people say 'free marketeer' they mean someone taking a free market approach to one area or more in our capitalsit system

Your juvenile insistence that you are right and others are wrong, simply because you either lack or ignore the ability to understand nuance, is tiring.

If anyone who supports a free market approach in our system ever varies course because of realities on the ground, you will always point to that as anathema.

Your insistence on purty is that of an idealized and infantile believer in ideas nd not reality.

You can't say a chair isn't a chair and anyone who disagrees is just a purist. A free market is a free market, not a mixed market with someone artificially setting interest rates, messing with the supply of money, and bailing out their banker buddies.

If I sit on a boulder in the woods, and say it can be used, for all practical purposes, as a chair...I might just refer to it as a chair.

You of course would jump up and down screaming That I somehow don't know what a chair is.

*wink

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

someone catch that free market before it runs into the bushes!

too late. It ran into the bush and the shrub

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you want me to take a purist approach, sure people like Bernanke, are not free marketeers, but the purist appraoch is not only unrealistic, it is....uhm...unrealistic. It is a philosophical argument that ignores how a free marketeer can perform in a realist way within the system we have...

Monoplies in capitalist systems are not inherently bad or anathema to a free market based economy. .. All monopoliea re not equal, and no one like Bernanke is advocationg others become monopolies.

Plus, Bernanke was in charge of money supply, not in charge of the regulation of specific financial industries.

That's the point, however. A definition is what it is.

And I always say IT is about definitions. When most people say 'free marketeer' they mean someone taking a free market approach to one area or more in our capitalsit system

Your juvenile insistence that you are right and others are wrong, simply because you either lack or ignore the ability to understand nuance, is tiring.

If anyone who supports a free market approach in our system ever varies course because of realities on the ground, you will always point to that as anathema.

Your insistence on purty is that of an idealized and infantile believer in ideas nd not reality.

You can't say a chair isn't a chair and anyone who disagrees is just a purist. A free market is a free market, not a mixed market with someone artificially setting interest rates, messing with the supply of money, and bailing out their banker buddies.

If I sit on a boulder in the woods, and say it can be used, for all practical purposes, as a chair...I might just refer to it as a chair.

You of course would jump up and down screaming That I somehow don't know what a chair is.

*wink

Except you try to point to their rhetoric, which is pointless. There is no policy of the Fed Chairman that is free market, because the Federal Reserve is the antithesis of the free market.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Except you try to point to their rhetoric, which is pointless. There is no policy of the Fed Chairman that is free market, because the Federal Reserve is the antithesis of the free market.

There are free market approaches to aspects of the economy we have. No one who advocates dismantling the central bank (FED) is taken seriously, so we are stuck with free market approaches to aspects of our economy....and thank gawd.

I can't image what terrible consequences we'd suffer if people like Ron Paul and others ever got the power to bring about the free market to all aspects of our economy. We'd cease to exist as an economic powerhouse.

 

[Oddball]

No less sad than your refusal to admit that the Chairman and board members of the biggest currency monopoly in the history of mankind aren't anywhere near "free marketeers".

If you want me to take a purist approach, sure people like Bernanke, are not free marketeers, but the purist appraoch is not only unrealistic, it is....uhm...unrealistic. It is a philosophical argument that ignores how a free marketeer can perform in a realist way within the system we have. No one is going to abandon the system we have now for a purely free market system, because the cross over alone would cause havoc.

Monoplies in capitalist systems are not inherently bad or anathema to a free market based economy. The trade off for what we have now is, reality. Society works better and gets a better product with regulated monopolies in certain areas. All monopoliea re not equal, and no one like Bernanke is advocationg others become monopolies.

Plus, Bernanke was in charge of money supply, not in charge of the regulation of specific financial industries.

Words mean things, your cheesy parsing of semantics nonwithstanding. The market is either free or it is not free. Any monopoly in the marketplace is the antithesis of freedom.

Also, the Fed sets the the base interest rate by arbitrary fiat, not by any measure of market forces. Therefore they ARE in charge of regulating the money supply and, by extension, all of those who play the fiat currency Ponzi scheme.

You really should go back to your inane bashing of Reagan and Rand...You'll look less, however slightly, of a complete babbling dilettante.

 

[Care4all]

Well, I am no Bernanke fan or cheerleader, but I did watch him on C-span this week giving a presentation of why the analysis SAYS that the Feds and their monetary policy was NOT the primary cause for the housing boom....and the figures do not lie. He matched up Fed policy/ interest rates with where the industry began to boom and peaked in MBS's and showed how this was manufactured by the mortgage companies, and the banks, and the the ratings agencies without any true relation to the Fed's interest rates. Look for it at C-span or maybe at you tube....? It was a very interesting presentation with charts etc...

 

[Anguille]

someone catch that free market before it runs into the bushes!

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, I am no Bernanke fan or cheerleader, but I did watch him on C-span this week giving a presentation of why the analysis SAYS that the Feds and their monetary policy was NOT the primary cause for the housing boom....and the figures do not lie. He matched up Fed policy/ interest rates with where the industry began to boom and peaked in MBS's and showed how this was manufactured by the mortgage companies, and the banks, and the the ratings agencies without any true relation to the Fed's interest rates. Look for it at C-span or maybe at you tube....? It was a very interesting presentation with charts etc...

After you screwed up earlier why would anyone believe you?

Of course interest rates influenced this. They always do. His claims about regulation are absurd. Banking and mortgage lending are among the most highly regulated industries in this country. And the widespread nature of it suggests that it is not a regulatory issue. If one or two large institutions had been guilty, it might be arguable.
But no. Financial institutions could borrow money cheap, re-lend it to mortgagors at higher rates, package the loans as MBS's and sell them to the Chinese. Make money all day long doing that.
The problem is you run out of qualified buyers. You fix that by reducing qualifications. Since bad loans take on average 18 months to show up, no one will notice for that long.

None of this is really complicated. Unless you are trying to hide something.