Deregulate Wall Street to solve all the problems

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

 

[Widdekind]

Former Citigroup Chairman Calls For Breaking Up Big Banks | ThinkProgress

Former Citigroup Chairman & CEO Sanford Weill suggested:

What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail.

Inexpertly, perhaps tax-payers could incentivize Weill's proposal, by FDIC insuring only those banks conforming to his specifications? Or, insuring only those deposits, backed by safe commercial & real-estate loans?

 

[expat_panama]

...perhaps tax-payers could incentivize Weill's proposal, by FDIC insuring only those banks conforming to his specifications? Or, insuring only those deposits, backed by safe commercial & real-estate loans?

Been done. From here:

FDIC insurance covers all deposit accounts, including checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit. FDIC insurance does not cover other financial products and services that banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares, life insurance policies, annuities or securities.​

 

[Norman]

...perhaps tax-payers could incentivize Weill's proposal, by FDIC insuring only those banks conforming to his specifications? Or, insuring only those deposits, backed by safe commercial & real-estate loans?

Been done. From here:

FDIC insurance covers all deposit accounts, including checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit. FDIC insurance does not cover other financial products and services that banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares, life insurance policies, annuities or securities.​

Uhm. Where in the text does it say that only deposits backed by real estate loans etc. are covered by FDIC?

To my knowledge all deposits are covered and the banks can back that up with risky assets - which they have to do because only return matters when your deposit is covered. And high risk = high return.

 

[expat_panama]

...From here:

FDIC insurance covers all deposit accounts, including checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit. FDIC insurance does not cover other financial products and services that banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares, life insurance policies, annuities or securities.​

Uhm. Where in the text does it say that only deposits backed by real estate loans etc. are covered by FDIC?...

Huh, that's not what you wanted after all. Of course there's no way of knowing, but you might be thinking that banks can make ridiculously risky loans on any kind of real-estate without any limits by FDIC audits. OK, maybe it sounds stupid but there are people on these threads that actually think that way.

Problem here is you're not saying what you wanted. Imagine if I'd replied with "Uhm, where in my post does is say the FDIC quote said only deposits backed by real estate loans etc. are covered by FDIC?" That would be slimy, antagonistic, whiny and snarky but it wouldn't get anywhere in figuring out how banks work.

Question: is there anything specific you'd like the FDIC to require in bank loans? For example, demanding that bank loans be "good" is not specific, while requiring that loans be for say, < half ATA appraised value, that is specific.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Question: is there anything specific you'd like the FDIC to require in bank loans?

not really, it sounds very very stifiling and socialist. I'd let the banks be as creative and risky as they want to be, but maybe the Feds could require a good accounting system so it would all be very transparent.

Everyone said the mortgage back securities and derivitives, for example, were so complicated they could not be evaluated? Sounds like BS. All you needed was the average credit rating for the mortgage holders of the security or the tranches within the security and their relative value would have been clear enough for all to see. An A,B, or C rating from a bought off rating agency was absurd.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That actually makes sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That actually makes sense.

yep!! When Warren Buffet invests or buys something he doesn't look
to a regulator to tell him its a good and safe investment. His motto is, "if i don't understand it, I don't buy it."

When people buy huge complex instruments that no one understands it can only be because liberals assured them they had made the world a safe place for them. Liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao had that in common: if you followed them they would lead you to the promised land they had created.

 

[Norman]

...From here:

FDIC insurance covers all deposit accounts, including checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit. FDIC insurance does not cover other financial products and services that banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares, life insurance policies, annuities or securities.​

Uhm. Where in the text does it say that only deposits backed by real estate loans etc. are covered by FDIC?...

Huh, that's not what you wanted after all. Of course there's no way of knowing, but you might be thinking that banks can make ridiculously risky loans on any kind of real-estate without any limits by FDIC audits. OK, maybe it sounds stupid but there are people on these threads that actually think that way.

Problem here is you're not saying what you wanted. Imagine if I'd replied with "Uhm, where in my post does is say the FDIC quote said only deposits backed by real estate loans etc. are covered by FDIC?" That would be slimy, antagonistic, whiny and snarky but it wouldn't get anywhere in figuring out how banks work.

Question: is there anything specific you'd like the FDIC to require in bank loans? For example, demanding that bank loans be "good" is not specific, while requiring that loans be for say, < half ATA appraised value, that is specific.

Actually my point in that post was just that FDIC covers all deposit accounts including the ones backed by stocks. I accidentally typed something different than I should have.

My opinion on FDIC:


I think the FDIC is fundamentally problematic and encourages risk taking no matter the limitations. The amount covered should be lowered or it should be done away with completely. One option would be that the banks or customers would get the insurance from private parties. Thus at least breaking the monopolistic and inflexible nature of FDIC.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One option would be that the banks or customers would get the insurance from private parties. Thus at least breaking the monopolistic and inflexible nature of FDIC.

Yes good idea. It would also be very helpful if there was a good accounting system so customers had an idea of what relative risks the banks were taking with their money. Someone who wanted higher interest would be free to invest at a bank that took higher risks thus making the entire system far more efficient than the current ones where the information is hidden from depositors.

 

[onecut39]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That actually makes sense.

He left out the part that they would disappear with your money.

 

[onecut39]

Forward to the past!!! That is libertarian thinking in a nutshell.

Libertarians should ask themselves why there has never been a libertarian government on the face of the earth......ever. (if you know of one please correct me) Maybe the feudal barons come the closest. today those who call themselves Libertarians constitute about a percent of the population..

Since reaching their apex with Ed Clarke and actually qualifying for federal funds they have sunk like a stone. People call Ron Paul a Libertarian. He is actually a right wing Republican with Libertarian tendencies. He certainly does not have enough confidence to call himself one.

If you want to know what libertarianism brings all you have to do is study the "Guilded Age" iin
America, that time that runs roughly from 1880 to 1910. That is part of our history that most resembles the Libertarian dream.

We have been there, or at least near there, and it sucked!

 

[The Rabbi]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That actually makes sense.

He left out the part that they would disappear with your money.

Yeah, that makes sense.
Oh, no it doesn't.

The main goal of the Obama Administration has been to turn banks and insurance companies into electrical utilities--tightly regulated entitites guaranteed to turn a small profit in exchange for monopolistic status.
That has to change. We need total deregulation where people are actually responsible for their failure. In the old days bank directors could be personally on the hook for losses suffered by depositors. Time to bring that rule back.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In the old days bank directors could be personally on the hook for losses suffered by depositors. Time to bring that rule back.

well, banks are going to make investments on behalf of depositors and sometimes those investments will lose all or part of deposited money.

The rule we need is more accounting related such that banks disclose how risky their investments are so depositors know before hand why they are getting a high or low interest rate and can pick based on their risk tolerance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That is
Libertarians should ask themselves why there has never been a libertarian government on the face of the earth......ever.

100% perfectly stupid!! THe USA was founded as libertarian and grew to be the the most successful country in human history by far.

If you want to know what libertarianism brings all you have to do is study the "Guilded Age" iin
and it sucked!

100% perfectly stupid and liberal. You are perfect testimony that liberalism is based on pure ignorance.

The Robber Barons: Republicans Greatest Shame!

From: The Myth of The Robber Barrons by Forest McDonald


Edward Collins $33,000 per Atlantic crossing (page 7)
Cornelius Vanderbilt (robber barron) $15,000 per Atlantic crossing

Collins $600 NY to California
Vanderbilt (robber barron) 150 NY to California( page 12)


"James J Hill cut freight costs from 90 cents to 44 cents a pound" (page 34) and still made a profit while the heavily subsidized Union Pacific and Central Pacific always lost money

"Coopers charged 2.50 per barrel Rockefeller cut his to $.96" (Page 86)

"From 1865 to 1870, the price of kerosene dropped from 58 to 26 cents per gallon,
Rockefeller made profits during everyone of these years" (page 87)

"Before 1870, only the rich could afford whale oil and candles, The rest had to go to bed to save money. By 1870 with the drop in the price of Kerosene, the middle and working class people all over the nation could afford the one cent an hour that it cost to light their homes at night".( page 87)

"When Andrew Carnegie entered steel production in 1872, England dominated world production and the price of steel production was $56 per ton. By 1900 Carnegie Steel was manufacturing steel for $11.00 per ton and out stripping the entire production of England!" (page 126)

 

[Toro]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

lol

 

[Toro]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That actually makes sense.

yep!! When Warren Buffet invests or buys something he doesn't look
to a regulator to tell him its a good and safe investment. His motto is, "if i don't understand it, I don't buy it."

When people buy huge complex instruments that no one understands it can only be because liberals assured them they had made the world a safe place for them. Liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao had that in common: if you followed them they would lead you to the promised land they had created.

^^^^^^^^^^
Hilarious.

 

[Rshermr]

That actually makes sense.

yep!! When Warren Buffet invests or buys something he doesn't look
to a regulator to tell him its a good and safe investment. His motto is, "if i don't understand it, I don't buy it."

When people buy huge complex instruments that no one understands it can only be because liberals assured them they had made the world a safe place for them. Liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao had that in common: if you followed them they would lead you to the promised land they had created.

^^^^^^^^^^
Hilarious.

Yeah. Thats it. Deregulate the crooks. Let them do what they want. Like we did in 1999. Took them 8 years to blow up the economy. But then, that was only once. Oh, except for that nasty little mess in 1929. But then, the market worked well for the next 75 years, right. Oh, thats right. There were regulations in plase until 99
Whats that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is called being crazy. But then, cons tend to always believe the con dogma, and never look at any other reasoning.

 

[Dr Grump]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

Your'e nuts...

 

[The Rabbi]

yep!! When Warren Buffet invests or buys something he doesn't look
to a regulator to tell him its a good and safe investment. His motto is, "if i don't understand it, I don't buy it."

When people buy huge complex instruments that no one understands it can only be because liberals assured them they had made the world a safe place for them. Liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao had that in common: if you followed them they would lead you to the promised land they had created.

^^^^^^^^^^
Hilarious.

Yeah. Thats it. Deregulate the crooks. Let them do what they want. Like we did in 1999. Took them 8 years to blow up the economy. But then, that was only once. Oh, except for that nasty little mess in 1929. But then, the market worked well for the next 75 years, right. Oh, thats right. There were regulations in plase until 99
Whats that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is called being crazy. But then, cons tend to always believe the con dogma, and never look at any other reasoning.

You're forgetting the S&L Crisis in the late 1980s and the recession in the early 1980s, both of whichhappened with Glass-Steagell in place.
But details were never the strong points of lib-tards.