The "Regulation" Argument

[rdean]

I was watching TV last night and someone made a great argument for regulation.

In Chile, less than 1,000 people died from the recent earthquake.

In Haiti, more than 220,000 people died from their recent earthquake.

The quake in Chile was 500 TIMES MORE POWERFUL – the fifth most powerful ever recorded. In fact, people there said they couldn't stay standing because of the shaking.

It seems that in the 1970’s, after an earthquake that killed many people, regulations for buildings were written and building codes strictly enforced.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the US just had a financial meltdown brought on by years of removing regulations and no oversight (Republicans insist that's good for business, Democrats not so much).

Since that “financial earthquake”, not a single new regulation has been put in place to ensure that it won’t happen again.

So the question becomes, in the next recession, will we be Chile or will we be Haiti?

 

[Paulie]

Chile has a MUCH better off economy than Haiti, dummy. It's a developed nation, whereas Haiti is third world. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.

It's much more affordable to conform to those regulations in Chile.

Of course, that's what regulation really ends up coming down to. Whether or not one can afford to conform to it.

 

[rdean]

Chile has a MUCH better off economy than Haiti, dummy. It's a developed nation, whereas Haiti is third world. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.

It's much more affordable to conform to those regulations in Chile.

Of course, that's what regulation really ends up coming down to. Whether or not one can afford to conform to it.

So you're saying we can't afford regulations? Some would say we can't afford NOT to have regulations.

 

[California Girl]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

 

[Paulie]

Chile has a MUCH better off economy than Haiti, dummy. It's a developed nation, whereas Haiti is third world. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.

It's much more affordable to conform to those regulations in Chile.

Of course, that's what regulation really ends up coming down to. Whether or not one can afford to conform to it.

So you're saying we can't afford regulations? Some would say we can't afford NOT to have regulations.

How am I saying that? I'm not even touching on the U.S. part of your post. Just that you think comparing Haiti to Chile is a good argument for regulation.

Regulation requires extra expenditure to achieve conformity. In Haiti, almost everyone is poor. Most people there are even lucky to have some type of roof over their heads at ALL. If regulation was imposed for stronger building, how many of those people do you think would end up homeless because they simply can't afford to conform?

That you're trying to parlay that comparison into why the US should impose more financial regulation is ridiculous. It's not even REMOTELY an adequate analogy.

 

[Paulie]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

Probably because it's not really about what's best for the people, but what's best for those that political favors are owed to.

But I understand your point in asking the question anyway.

 

[California Girl]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

Probably because it's not really about what's best for the people, but what's best for those that political favors are owed to.

But I understand your point in asking the question anyway.

My point is only to highlight rdean's inability to see beyond his partisan view and see reality.

 

[rdean]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

Nice deflection. So, do you think that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie/Fannie?

Let's take a look at that. The problem was building for years, but the "trigger" was the fact that cheap "mortgages" were bundled together and sold overseas as "false" securities. Unsuspecting buyers were buying these "bundled securities" and that led directly to the "crash".

So, did Freddie/Fannie sell these bundled mortgages overseas? Or did Wall Street?

If it was Wall Street, then where did they get the mortgages? Not from Freddie/Fannie. No, because of deregulation, they were able to pretty much take over that market. Wall Street handed out mortgages like candy corn, bundled the mortgages together and sold them overseas as "securities". Did the Democrats deregulate Wall Street? Does it sound like something Democrats would do.

I think that if you check it out, you will find that Freddie/Fannie required you to not only have a job, but you had to prove you could afford to pay a mortgage. Wall Street had no such provisions. The market moved from more than 70% Freddie/Fannie to more than 70% Wall Street.

 

[rdean]

Chile has a MUCH better off economy than Haiti, dummy. It's a developed nation, whereas Haiti is third world. You're literally comparing apples to oranges.

It's much more affordable to conform to those regulations in Chile.

Of course, that's what regulation really ends up coming down to. Whether or not one can afford to conform to it.

So you're saying we can't afford regulations? Some would say we can't afford NOT to have regulations.

How am I saying that? I'm not even touching on the U.S. part of your post. Just that you think comparing Haiti to Chile is a good argument for regulation.

Regulation requires extra expenditure to achieve conformity. In Haiti, almost everyone is poor. Most people there are even lucky to have some type of roof over their heads at ALL. If regulation was imposed for stronger building, how many of those people do you think would end up homeless because they simply can't afford to conform?

That you're trying to parlay that comparison into why the US should impose more financial regulation is ridiculous. It's not even REMOTELY an adequate analogy.

My analogy is bad? Let me point out, "those people are homeless now", not just the poor, but everyone. Oops.

 

[Paulie]

So you're saying we can't afford regulations? Some would say we can't afford NOT to have regulations.

How am I saying that? I'm not even touching on the U.S. part of your post. Just that you think comparing Haiti to Chile is a good argument for regulation.

Regulation requires extra expenditure to achieve conformity. In Haiti, almost everyone is poor. Most people there are even lucky to have some type of roof over their heads at ALL. If regulation was imposed for stronger building, how many of those people do you think would end up homeless because they simply can't afford to conform?

That you're trying to parlay that comparison into why the US should impose more financial regulation is ridiculous. It's not even REMOTELY an adequate analogy.

My analogy is bad? Let me point out, "those people are homeless now", not just the poor, but everyone. Oops.

Ok, so what would the government have done with all those people when they were made homeless YEARS ago because of unaffordable building codes?

 

[California Girl]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

Nice deflection. So, do you think that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie/Fannie?

Let's take a look at that. The problem was building for years, but the "trigger" was the fact that cheap "mortgages" were bundled together and sold overseas as "false" securities. Unsuspecting buyers were buying these "bundled securities" and that led directly to the "crash".

So, did Freddie/Fannie sell these bundled mortgages overseas? Or did Wall Street?

If it was Wall Street, then where did they get the mortgages? Not from Freddie/Fannie. No, because of deregulation, they were able to pretty much take over that market. Wall Street handed out mortgages like candy corn, bundled the mortgages together and sold them overseas as "securities". Did the Democrats deregulate Wall Street? Does it sound like something Democrats would do.

I think that if you check it out, you will find that Freddie/Fannie required you to not only have a job, but you had to prove you could afford to pay a mortgage. Wall Street had no such provisions. The market moved from more than 70% Freddie/Fannie to more than 70% Wall Street.

rdean, you can deny till the cows come home but denial does not change facts. Constantly blaming the GOP for the world's ills may suit your political agenda but it's crap and it will remain crap forever. The only thing you prove by your posts are that you know jack shit.

 

[cbi0090]

It is our legal system that makes our building regulations superior in the U.S. and elsewhere where they operate similarly. Building regulations in the U.S. are not established by the government. They are adopted by the government(s), but set by the industry, primarily the insurers, engineers and contractors. Only recently have certain regions put together a standard code. It's a dance between the industry and the government that is in constant motion because material and methods change so rapidly here. Government can't possibly keep up and it's one area where they acknowledge that fact.

That doesn't mean the government hasn't attempted to take it to the nth degree and try to regulate things but their incompentence fortunately limits their reach and their primary focus is not on making things meet code for reasons of safety but just to make sure taxes can be levied on the improvements. That is what they do best and it works pretty well because it is done through permitting processes. In that process, they only have to make sure that certain minimum requirements "industry standards" are met or that what is going to be built is "engineered" (sign and sealed by a registered engineer).

There's nothing more funny than seeing the City building code inspector tip toeing through the mud at a construction site in his white patent leather shoes and matching belt, plaid polyester pants and shirt with the wind blowing his comb-over up and down. They always turn out to be some commisioner's useless relative with an over-blown opinion of themselves. If I could buy them for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth I'd give Gates a run for their money. It seems ridiculous but it works because the government can essentially get by with those folks because the industry is so self-regulated.

 

[rikules]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

I see


so you are blaming liberal democrats for opposing regulation of business....


gosh.....how conservative of them....

and...how liberal of YOU!

I didn't realize you were a closet liberal, wanting to regulate big business

I must have been on some other planet for the past 20 years...
I was under the impression that cons were angry with liberals for WANTING to fetter big business...

or
perhaps this is just another example of the crazy wacky insane world of deranged conservatism!

cons mock and ridicule liberals for decades, accusing them of trying to regulate big business....

then

when the shit hits the fan

cons BLAME liberals for NOT trying to regulate big business....

lol....

oh. calchic....

you do need help

 

[rikules]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

Nice deflection. So, do you think that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie/Fannie?

Let's take a look at that. The problem was building for years, but the "trigger" was the fact that cheap "mortgages" were bundled together and sold overseas as "false" securities. Unsuspecting buyers were buying these "bundled securities" and that led directly to the "crash".

So, did Freddie/Fannie sell these bundled mortgages overseas? Or did Wall Street?

If it was Wall Street, then where did they get the mortgages? Not from Freddie/Fannie. No, because of deregulation, they were able to pretty much take over that market. Wall Street handed out mortgages like candy corn, bundled the mortgages together and sold them overseas as "securities". Did the Democrats deregulate Wall Street? Does it sound like something Democrats would do.

I think that if you check it out, you will find that Freddie/Fannie required you to not only have a job, but you had to prove you could afford to pay a mortgage. Wall Street had no such provisions. The market moved from more than 70% Freddie/Fannie to more than 70% Wall Street.

rdean, you can deny till the cows come home but denial does not change facts. Constantly blaming the GOP for the world's ills may suit your political agenda but it's crap and it will remain crap forever. The only thing you prove by your posts are that you know jack shit.

having heard enough con spinmeisters
and read their books and op-ed pieces
there can be no doubt that they, too, blame all liberals and democrats for all the ills of the world...

is that crap, too?

 

[Paulie]

Nice deflection. So, do you think that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie/Fannie?

Let's take a look at that. The problem was building for years, but the "trigger" was the fact that cheap "mortgages" were bundled together and sold overseas as "false" securities. Unsuspecting buyers were buying these "bundled securities" and that led directly to the "crash".

So, did Freddie/Fannie sell these bundled mortgages overseas? Or did Wall Street?

If it was Wall Street, then where did they get the mortgages? Not from Freddie/Fannie. No, because of deregulation, they were able to pretty much take over that market. Wall Street handed out mortgages like candy corn, bundled the mortgages together and sold them overseas as "securities". Did the Democrats deregulate Wall Street? Does it sound like something Democrats would do.

I think that if you check it out, you will find that Freddie/Fannie required you to not only have a job, but you had to prove you could afford to pay a mortgage. Wall Street had no such provisions. The market moved from more than 70% Freddie/Fannie to more than 70% Wall Street.

rdean, you can deny till the cows come home but denial does not change facts. Constantly blaming the GOP for the world's ills may suit your political agenda but it's crap and it will remain crap forever. The only thing you prove by your posts are that you know jack shit.

having heard enough con spinmeisters
and read their books and op-ed pieces
there can be no doubt that they, too, blame all liberals and democrats for all the ills of the world...

is that crap, too?

Yep.

Every conservative is X, and every liberal is Y.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Now the US just had a financial meltdown brought on by years of removing regulations and no oversight (Republicans insist that's good for business, Democrats not so much).

It was a combination of not enforcing existing regulation (see Enron, Bernie Madoff) and lack of proper regulation (Fannie and Freddie), now compacted with yet further monetary inflation (to achieve the bailouts) and increased moral hazard that guarantees bad investments in the future.

 

[rdean]

Conservatives can whine and complain all they want. The truth is the "prick" that burst the bubble which led to the crash was bundled home mortgages sold as "securities" by Wall Street to overseas investors. Freddie/Fannie never sold bundled mortgages to overseas investors. Wall Street did it. They didn't do it 20 years ago. Why now? Because they had been deregulated and were allowed to.

Go ahead and call names. If that's not what happened, then what did? Make it good.

 

[Toro]

Deregulation was part of the problem, particularly allowing the investment banks to get highly leveraged (like the GSEs!). However, there were many reasons for the bubble, of which the central bank is probably the biggest culprit.

 

[rdean]

I am particularly entertained by rdean's comment about the democrats preferring regulation. If that is the case, why did they work so hard to stop any regulation of Fanny and Freddie?

Nice deflection. So, do you think that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie/Fannie?

Let's take a look at that. The problem was building for years, but the "trigger" was the fact that cheap "mortgages" were bundled together and sold overseas as "false" securities. Unsuspecting buyers were buying these "bundled securities" and that led directly to the "crash".

So, did Freddie/Fannie sell these bundled mortgages overseas? Or did Wall Street?

If it was Wall Street, then where did they get the mortgages? Not from Freddie/Fannie. No, because of deregulation, they were able to pretty much take over that market. Wall Street handed out mortgages like candy corn, bundled the mortgages together and sold them overseas as "securities". Did the Democrats deregulate Wall Street? Does it sound like something Democrats would do.

I think that if you check it out, you will find that Freddie/Fannie required you to not only have a job, but you had to prove you could afford to pay a mortgage. Wall Street had no such provisions. The market moved from more than 70% Freddie/Fannie to more than 70% Wall Street.

rdean, you can deny till the cows come home but denial does not change facts. Constantly blaming the GOP for the world's ills may suit your political agenda but it's crap and it will remain crap forever. The only thing you prove by your posts are that you know jack shit.

The GOP refuses to accept even a shred of responsibility for any their failures. Not Iraq, not they mess the left Katrina, not the 1.8 trillion tax cut failure, not deregulation, nothing, nada, zip. Worse, the publicly proclaim the want the President to FAIL cleaning up their mess. That is the reality. That is today. That is what is going on now.

 

[rdean]

Deregulation was part of the problem, particularly allowing the investment banks to get highly leveraged (like the GSEs!). However, there were many reasons for the bubble, of which the central bank is probably the biggest culprit.

Any time you see a problem and can recognize a starting place for fixing it, then good - that's the place to start.