Over-regulated America

[Cecilie1200]

It's fairly common knowledge but here's a link if you think I am just making stuff up.

BBC NEWS | Business | Mathematicians' role in market mayhem

Oh, WELL, the BBC thinks that American banks operate in an unregulated free-for-all, so that proves it.

Or perhaps it's just that you're a dimwit who hears that banks use accountants to the best financial advantage they can, and assumes that means they just "magically" make money appear and disappear and are stealing and breaking the law.

Tell me something real that isn't your own paranoia-of-the-uneducated-prole assumption based on foreign newspapers, please.

You really need to take a good look at the methods the brokerage houses use to game the system. Some very dishonest and damaging things are legal only because the law is still in a pencil and paper mindset. You seem to be fine with acts that are similar in nature to embezzlement.

You really need to start substantiating what you say, rather than wasting my time with "If you knew more, you'd realize how right I am." You're an idiot. The more posts you go through expecting me to take your word for ANYTHING, the more of an idiot you appear to be.

Please, in the future, start from the assumption that I view the fact that you said something as prima facie evidence that it's wrong, and work from there.

I'm finished discussing your unproven assertions as though they're meaningful, so this conversation is over until you have something besides your opinion to add to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Banks hire top mathematicians to formulate tricky new ways to skim off the top and make money disappear from the economy and end up in their pockets, if banks want simplicity in regulation then they should be prepared to drop their hideously complex ways of making money appear out of nowhere and vanish from sight. Their dark alchemy demands complex regulation.

I am inundated with offers to "go green" and not be mailed bills by my creditors. You think it is so they can save trees? No. It is so people will disregard e-mails and miss payments as a result; so they can levy late charges.

Actually, you paranoid git, it's so they don't have to pay the extra money to have paper mailings printed and sent out, and the extra wages for the people it takes to prepare them. It's the same reason that your food stamps come on an EBT card now instead of in a bundle of paper slips in a certified envelope.

As if people pay any more attention to their paper mail than they do to their e-mail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Banks hire top mathematicians to formulate tricky new ways to skim off the top and make money disappear from the economy and end up in their pockets, if banks want simplicity in regulation then they should be prepared to drop their hideously complex ways of making money appear out of nowhere and vanish from sight. Their dark alchemy demands complex regulation.

I am inundated with offers to "go green" and not be mailed bills by my creditors. You think it is so they can save trees? No. It is so people will disregard e-mails and miss payments as a result; so they can levy late charges.

Since banks are a necessity, their fees can be seen as taxation without representation, their fees on practically everything adds cost to everything and no one pays more than the people who live month to month.

Excepting the little fact that only governments can tax, and banks aren't government entities.

But then, when have you ever let facts stand in your way?

By the way, banks are not "a necessity". They're a good idea, but it's perfectly feasible for you to operate on a strictly cash basis and store it under your mattress, if it's so goddamned onerous for you to pay a business for their services. What other businesses do you expect to provide you services for free, just out of curiosity?

 

[Chris]

It was the lack of government regulation that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Bring back Glass-Steagall.

 

[occupied]

Oh, WELL, the BBC thinks that American banks operate in an unregulated free-for-all, so that proves it.

Or perhaps it's just that you're a dimwit who hears that banks use accountants to the best financial advantage they can, and assumes that means they just "magically" make money appear and disappear and are stealing and breaking the law.

Tell me something real that isn't your own paranoia-of-the-uneducated-prole assumption based on foreign newspapers, please.

You really need to take a good look at the methods the brokerage houses use to game the system. Some very dishonest and damaging things are legal only because the law is still in a pencil and paper mindset. You seem to be fine with acts that are similar in nature to embezzlement.

You really need to start substantiating what you say, rather than wasting my time with "If you knew more, you'd realize how right I am." You're an idiot. The more posts you go through expecting me to take your word for ANYTHING, the more of an idiot you appear to be.

Please, in the future, start from the assumption that I view the fact that you said something as prima facie evidence that it's wrong, and work from there.

I'm finished discussing your unproven assertions as though they're meaningful, so this conversation is over until you have something besides your opinion to add to it.

Their opinion is all anyone has here, if you don't like it then prove me wrong or ignore it or post an angry response devoid of content, I really don't care.

How's that for some good passive aggressive pouting, oh master of the art?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Let me get serious,on another side of overregulation on business.
Im a commercial and residential contractor.
i dont run a union shop,never will.
as a business owner,i will pay for and compensate the most who works the most,proves to me,the greatest skill,efficiency,and value and value to my clients and business.
i dont need a gestapo to tell me to pay a slacker,whining,who cant pull their own weight.
my jobs are time sensitive,OSHA run,and have required skills.
i pay people well,if they earn it.
you slack,or cause a risk,or slack, i can your ass,plain and simple.
i dont need a union equating the same pay to my best employee to a slacker,whos dead weight.

There's a difference between a working businessman and Citibank and it's not just a question of size. Can you make money appear out of nowhere, or magically suck it out of the economy, having produced nothing whatsoever of value and put it offshore avoiding taxation? Didn't think so, me neither. They do not share the same concerns as you and certainly care much less for you than you do for them, they would ruin you tomorrow if there was a couple of grand in it for them.

Your ignorance of banking and markets is astoundingly pathetic.

 

[occupied]

Let me get serious,on another side of overregulation on business.
Im a commercial and residential contractor.
i dont run a union shop,never will.
as a business owner,i will pay for and compensate the most who works the most,proves to me,the greatest skill,efficiency,and value and value to my clients and business.
i dont need a gestapo to tell me to pay a slacker,whining,who cant pull their own weight.
my jobs are time sensitive,OSHA run,and have required skills.
i pay people well,if they earn it.
you slack,or cause a risk,or slack, i can your ass,plain and simple.
i dont need a union equating the same pay to my best employee to a slacker,whos dead weight.

There's a difference between a working businessman and Citibank and it's not just a question of size. Can you make money appear out of nowhere, or magically suck it out of the economy, having produced nothing whatsoever of value and put it offshore avoiding taxation? Didn't think so, me neither. They do not share the same concerns as you and certainly care much less for you than you do for them, they would ruin you tomorrow if there was a couple of grand in it for them.

Your ignorance of banking and markets is astoundingly pathetic.

Educate me then, what specifically did I get wrong?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You really need to take a good look at the methods the brokerage houses use to game the system. Some very dishonest and damaging things are legal only because the law is still in a pencil and paper mindset. You seem to be fine with acts that are similar in nature to embezzlement.

You really need to start substantiating what you say, rather than wasting my time with "If you knew more, you'd realize how right I am." You're an idiot. The more posts you go through expecting me to take your word for ANYTHING, the more of an idiot you appear to be.

Please, in the future, start from the assumption that I view the fact that you said something as prima facie evidence that it's wrong, and work from there.

I'm finished discussing your unproven assertions as though they're meaningful, so this conversation is over until you have something besides your opinion to add to it.

Their opinion is all anyone has here, if you don't like it then prove me wrong or ignore it or post an angry response devoid of content, I really don't care.

How's that for some good passive aggressive pouting, oh master of the art?

No, dumbass, everyone does NOT "just have their opinions". SOME of us are capable of actually proving what we say. Clearly, this is a concept which is alien to you, thus explaining why I'm ending the conversation.

By the way, only a complete dumbshit starts out with "All I can be expected to provide is my opinion", and THEN demands to be proven wrong. Of course, only a dumbshit thinks it's possible to prove a negative. Again, this explains why I'm ending the conversation. Life is too short to spend it on oxygen thieves.

Call me when your shipment of brain cells comes in, hmmm?

FLUSH!

 

[occupied]

You really need to start substantiating what you say, rather than wasting my time with "If you knew more, you'd realize how right I am." You're an idiot. The more posts you go through expecting me to take your word for ANYTHING, the more of an idiot you appear to be.

Please, in the future, start from the assumption that I view the fact that you said something as prima facie evidence that it's wrong, and work from there.

I'm finished discussing your unproven assertions as though they're meaningful, so this conversation is over until you have something besides your opinion to add to it.

Their opinion is all anyone has here, if you don't like it then prove me wrong or ignore it or post an angry response devoid of content, I really don't care.

How's that for some good passive aggressive pouting, oh master of the art?

No, dumbass, everyone does NOT "just have their opinions". SOME of us are capable of actually proving what we say. Clearly, this is a concept which is alien to you, thus explaining why I'm ending the conversation.

By the way, only a complete dumbshit starts out with "All I can be expected to provide is my opinion", and THEN demands to be proven wrong. Of course, only a dumbshit thinks it's possible to prove a negative. Again, this explains why I'm ending the conversation. Life is too short to spend it on oxygen thieves.

Call me when your shipment of brain cells comes in, hmmm?

FLUSH!

That was the internet equivalent of storming out of the room and slamming the door. Explain how I am wrong and hold the histrionics.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Bad government regulation caused the housing bubble
and the ensuing financial crisis

It was government meddling in the private sector
that created the housing bubble and financial crisis.

 

[dblack]

Banks hire top mathematicians to formulate tricky new ways to skim off the top and make money disappear from the economy and end up in their pockets, if banks want simplicity in regulation then they should be prepared to drop their hideously complex ways of making money appear out of nowhere and vanish from sight. Their dark alchemy demands complex regulation.

This is utterly delusional. It's not the banks, or any other major corporation, who need relief from the regulatory regime - it's the rest of us. The vested interests thrive on this shit. They use it to maintain their dominance. You're right to say "their dark alchemy demands complex regulation", but not in the way you probably mean. Their "dark alchemy" thrives on complex regulation. We're foolish to indulge them.

 

[dblack]

Since banks are a necessity, their fees can be seen as taxation without representation, their fees on practically everything adds cost to everything and no one pays more than the people who live month to month.

Banks are a necessity only to the extent that their services are mandated by law. For the most part, that's not the case - yet. I went for several years without a bank account and I'm ready and willing to do so again if necessary. The irony is that the very thing you're arguing for - a broad regulatory regime - does often amount to taxation without representation. Things like insurance mandates make it even worse, by granting corporations the power to tax us directly. In other cases, regulation is used to imposed financial burdens on smaller competitors by the vested interests in an industry.

As long as we can say "no" to a given service or product, we are free to avoid doing business with unscrupulous vendors. Unfortunately, we are rapidly trading that freedom away in exchange for dubious promises of security.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From The Economist, Feb 18th 2012, this really says it all. IMHO it's worth the time it takes to read it.

Why bother......when we KNOW what happens, when there's LESS "government interference"???




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6whSWn1RRM]Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually FDR policies prolonged and made the Depression worse

 

[Cuyo]

If you understand whos regulating the laws,and their positions and motivations,youll see the intentions quite clear.

Oh really,why vamp,whatre there intentions,dont keep me in the dark.

 

[jgarden]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

Don't look now, dear, but your envy AND your ignorance are both showing. How embarrassing!

 

[California Girl]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

You have an adverse reaction to intellect, huh?

 

[Neotrotsky]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

He sure does

 

[jgarden]

The "wealthy" demand enough government regulations to protect their assets from the other 99%

BUT

denounce those regulations aimed at protecting the assets of the other 99% from them!

Don't look now, dear, but your envy AND your ignorance are both showing. How embarrassing!

Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Sorry but i don't feel embarrassed!

I do take some comfort that on Judgement Day, it will be the "wealthy" who will be the ones showing "envy" after living a life of wilful "ignorance."