Should We Kill The Fed?

[dilloduck]

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

Have you discussed this with Obama? Have you asked him why Bernanke is still at the Fed?
Have you done a damn to alleviate the problem ?

Yes, No and Yes.

Then I recommend that you do Question B and let us know what he says.

 

[sealybobo]

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

I don't quite understand your point hear. The Fed lowered interest rates in 01-02 because of the slowdown and 9-11 fears, and started raising rates again in '04. It only recently reduced them in response to the crisis.

I'm not sure what effect that had on mortgage rates, but they have gone very high in the last several years.

It was last year. The Fed lowered rates to help with the economic crisis. But I heard on the news that they only lowered the rates for the banks and new mortgages of course.

I was wondering why the rates didn't drop for all the people who had those adjustable mortgages?

If their mortgage payments went up because interest rates went up, why didn't their mortgage payments go down when the fed lowered rates?

I don't think this answers my question but:

Safe Haven | The Federal Reserve's Interest Rate Cut Does Not Help Americans

 

[sealybobo]

No, I don't trust 'em. What does that have to do with the Fed?

The Federal Reserve was started by JP Morgan, Rockafellor, Carnege.
Standard Oil was started by Rockafellor.
If you look at the history of these robber barons, they were ruthless cutthroat business men.

Well no, it was established by a law passed by Congress, which, in a rare moment of wisdom, realized that it was too irresponsible to have control of something as critical as the money supply, and put control of the nation's money supply in a quasi-government institution.

Anyways, so these rich bankers bribed Congress in 1913 to let them control our countries finances. No way the government would have done that if they weren't bribed.

Anyways, to make a long story short, Rockafellor was forced to break up Standard Oil. When he did, he became the richest man in the world because he kept part ownership of all the new oil companies.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers. IF they don't own all the banks, they own the people who own all the banks.

That is true, they are the shareholders, but unlike a normal corporation, they don't choose the Board of Directors. The President does, with approval of the Senate. Unlike a normal corporation, the shareholders of the Fed (which get a fixed ROI by law of 6%) don't control "management."

I have determined in my mind that you are either a banker or you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Few Americans know the truth about the Federal Reserve. The reality is it is no more a part of the federal government than is Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation run by private bankers.

Why should you care? Because as President Thomas Jefferson, President Andrew Jackson and President Woodrow Wilson all understood, a private central bank has the power to destroy our lives and steal our freedoms.

The U.S. Treasury, in connection with the Federal Reserve, has “loaned” billions of taxpayer dollars to banks here in the U.S. and around the world and there is no guarantee we will ever be re-paid. This is nothing more than the rich bankers taking care of their rich banking friends while creating further inflation that limits your buying power of essentials such as food and clothing. In other words, the injections of liquidity by the feds in the billions of dollars have caused you and me to be the recipients of a “hidden tax” through the debasement of our currency.

While many doubted my predictions, in 2007, on my national radio program, I predicted that the federal government, at the encouragement of the Federal Reserve, and with your tax dollars, would bail out many banks from their bad business decisions. I also predicted that major banks would fail and that massive inflation was to follow. I still believe the latter will occur.

As you will see from the Presidential warnings below, the expansion of an all powerful central government is created through the unconstitutional and self serving fiscal policies of a central banking system.

Americans had better wake up to what is going on and start electing state and federal officials that have the understanding of President Thomas Jefferson, President Andrew Jackson and President Woodrow Wilson.

Thomas Jefferson on the dangers of a central bank wrote:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States 1801-1809

Past Presidents Have Warned Us About The Danger and Corruption of A Central Bank (The Federal Reserve) - Rebuild the Party

Also, get your hands on Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.

Or look into Ron Paul:

Our Money | Ron Paul .com

Since the Fed is a "quasi" government agency, can we audit them?

Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 33 Co-Sponsors! | Ron Paul .com

I can't believe you approve of greedy bankers having this much power. Do you get to vote for who owns the Fed? At least you get to vote on who runs our government.

You have been fooled into thinking the government is always evil and the bankers are good. What is wrong with you? You are insane!!!!

 

[Iriemon]

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

I don't quite understand your point hear. The Fed lowered interest rates in 01-02 because of the slowdown and 9-11 fears, and started raising rates again in '04. It only recently reduced them in response to the crisis.

I'm not sure what effect that had on mortgage rates, but they have gone very high in the last several years.

It was last year. The Fed lowered rates to help with the economic crisis. But I heard on the news that they only lowered the rates for the banks and new mortgages of course.

I was wondering why the rates didn't drop for all the people who had those adjustable mortgages?

If their mortgage payments went up because interest rates went up, why didn't their mortgage payments go down when the fed lowered rates?

I don't think this answers my question but:

Safe Haven | The Federal Reserve's Interest Rate Cut Does Not Help Americans

I'm not sure. However, the Fed does not control interest rates in mortgage loans directly. The interest rates are a contract between borrower and lender. Variable rate agreements are often pegged after a period of time to some interest rate measure, like the prime or rates on US Treasuries, neither of which the Fed controls directly.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't quite understand your point hear. The Fed lowered interest rates in 01-02 because of the slowdown and 9-11 fears, and started raising rates again in '04. It only recently reduced them in response to the crisis.

I'm not sure what effect that had on mortgage rates, but they have gone very high in the last several years.

It was last year. The Fed lowered rates to help with the economic crisis. But I heard on the news that they only lowered the rates for the banks and new mortgages of course.

I was wondering why the rates didn't drop for all the people who had those adjustable mortgages?

If their mortgage payments went up because interest rates went up, why didn't their mortgage payments go down when the fed lowered rates?

I don't think this answers my question but:

Safe Haven | The Federal Reserve's Interest Rate Cut Does Not Help Americans

I'm not sure. However, the Fed does not control interest rates in mortgage loans directly. The interest rates are a contract between borrower and lender. Variable rate agreements are often pegged after a period of time to some interest rate measure, like the prime or rates on US Treasuries, neither of which the Fed controls directly.

Who controls the rates if not the Fed?

 

[Iriemon]

The Federal Reserve was started by JP Morgan, Rockafellor, Carnege.
Standard Oil was started by Rockafellor.
If you look at the history of these robber barons, they were ruthless cutthroat business men.

Well no, it was established by a law passed by Congress, which, in a rare moment of wisdom, realized that it was too irresponsible to have control of something as critical as the money supply, and put control of the nation's money supply in a quasi-government institution.

Anyways, so these rich bankers bribed Congress in 1913 to let them control our countries finances. No way the government would have done that if they weren't bribed.

Anyways, to make a long story short, Rockafellor was forced to break up Standard Oil. When he did, he became the richest man in the world because he kept part ownership of all the new oil companies.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers. IF they don't own all the banks, they own the people who own all the banks.

That is true, they are the shareholders, but unlike a normal corporation, they don't choose the Board of Directors. The President does, with approval of the Senate. Unlike a normal corporation, the shareholders of the Fed (which get a fixed ROI by law of 6%) don't control "management."

I have determined in my mind that you are either a banker or you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

You make determinations quickly. And it's a funny determination to state after you just commented on my intellegent post.

As far as who knows what they are talking about, others can decide for themselves.

Few Americans know the truth about the Federal Reserve. The reality is it is no more a part of the federal government than is Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation run by private bankers.

Let's stop right there at your first factual assertion -- this is a crucial point.

Do you deny that the Board of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President?

How many other normal, private corporations are you aware of where the President of the US picks their board of directors?

 

[neurosport]

There is literally no end to America's stupidity.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

- Henry Ford

Lucky for the bankers that Americans will never understand.

"what good fortune for governments that people do not think"

~ Adolf Hitler

 

[Iriemon]

It was last year. The Fed lowered rates to help with the economic crisis. But I heard on the news that they only lowered the rates for the banks and new mortgages of course.

I was wondering why the rates didn't drop for all the people who had those adjustable mortgages?

If their mortgage payments went up because interest rates went up, why didn't their mortgage payments go down when the fed lowered rates?

I don't think this answers my question but:

Safe Haven | The Federal Reserve's Interest Rate Cut Does Not Help Americans

I'm not sure. However, the Fed does not control interest rates in mortgage loans directly. The interest rates are a contract between borrower and lender. Variable rate agreements are often pegged after a period of time to some interest rate measure, like the prime or rates on US Treasuries, neither of which the Fed controls directly.

Who controls the rates if not the Fed?

Supply and demand. Fed discount rates can have some influence on rates the market determines, but does not control them.

 

[neurosport]

Do you deny that the Board of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President?

who gives a fuck ?

why should the economy of the nation belong to some cocksucker ? i don't care if he's technically not involved in management - he is still the owner.

where does it say in the constitution that our country is for sale ?

 

[Iriemon]

Do you deny that the Board of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President?

who gives a fuck ?

Who asked you? Normal private companis don't have their boards selected by the President.

why should the economy of the nation belong to some cocksucker ? i don't care if he's technically not involved in management - he is still the owner.

Bernanke is the owner of the Fed? That's news to me. Source please.

 

[American Horse]

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

Mortgage rates aren’t controlled by the Fed. Nor are they tied to 10-Year Treasury Note rates, the Federal Funds Rate, the Discount Rate, etc. All these actually have no impact on mortgage rates,at least in a positive way. Mortgage rates are specifically correlated to mortgage backed securities (MBS), which are - for the most part - 30-year bonds. As the price of MBS bonds rise, interest rates go down; as MBS bonds go down, interest rates go up.

Theoretically when the Fed lowers the Federal Funds Rate, this rate cut spurs the stock market, encouraging investors to pull money out of bonds (including MBS bonds), driving bond prices down, driving mortgage rates up. Thus a reduction in the discount rate by the Fed, while driving down short term commercial and business interest rates, can at the same time, in the short term, drive mortgage rates up. And activity in the Fed Fund Rate may not have any affect at all immediately, or not until those Notes come due for renewal.

The ability of Fannie Mae to sell Mortgage backed securities - to get rid of old mortgages - (to the Fed for instance) would make more backing available for new mortages to be created by mortgage lenders to be bought up by Fannie, and that would tend to drive down, or to keep mortgage rates low. That is a direct way the Fed could affect mortgage rates: by soaking up mortgages from Fannie & Freddie, or committing to do so.

But the problem with the high mortage rates these sub-prime borrowers had to pay was that they were variable rate mortgages. These sub-prime borrowers (the term sub-prime is not related to the "prime" rate, but instead that they are not first-quality or "prime" borrowers), were looking to borrow at a rate which allowed them to buy the most home for the least monthly payment. They took the chance that their mortgages would be paid off (because they would've sold and moved on) or that their income would increase to match their mortgage payment. But they could've gotten a mortgage rate only a point or so higher in a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. But they didn't; and now there is pressure to keep all mortgage rates low as possible to accommodate these less than first class borrowers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There was nothing conservative about the GOP run government from 2000-2006 either. I wonder why they didn't keep any of their promises? Why did they break pork spending records for 3 years straight? Can you explain?

And another thing. There is nothing conservative about most Republicans. Last year we told guys like you that the US spends more than the rest of the world on defense, and conservatives like you approved of that kind of spending.

You didn't even care if half of the spending was fraud/waste/corruption.

Earmarks aren't a problem sealy, the money is being spent regardless of whether it's earmarked or not. That's not to say that I agree with all of it, but at least understand what an earmark is before you buy into the media's condemnation of it.

I'm not a conservative, which you already know by the way, and I don't approve of our foreign policy or it's price tag. In fact, our Democratic President is far more pro-war than me.

I care very much about government spending sealy, that's one reason why I didn't vote for McCain or Obama.

Go back and look at all the pork the GOP passed in 2005 and 2006. Seems to me they knew they were going to lose power and so they emptied the treasury before it was over. Remember Bridges to knowhere, etc.

And I don't know why people are calling Obama "pro war". Have you lost interest in capturing/killing Osama and destroying Al Queda and the Taliban?

Remember, us liberals are mad about being lied into Iraq and we are mad at how Bush used Iraq to empty the treasury.

Same as we are not happy about the $750 billion bank bailout right at the end.

So think about all that GOP wasteful spending that went on. The pork of 2005 & 2006, the wars, and now the $750 billion dollar bailout Bush asked for in his last month in office.

Am I nuts to think it was all on purpose?

Again, earmark money is going to be spent whether it's earmarked or not. If Congress doesn't earmark certain funds then they leave it to others to decide where it gets spent, but it still gets spent. The problem is out of control spending in general, not earmarks.

Obama is pro-war because he is continuing the war in Iraq right now, and increasing military operations in Afghanistan. Someone who is anti-war would pull out of both locations, and every other location around the world we have a military presence, as soon as possible.

You aren't happy about bank bailouts? Me either. I don't support bailouts for anyone though, not just banks in particular.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

Tax cuts are great so long as spending is cut as well, deregulation is always good, and with a Democratic President the military budget is increasing.

When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates it means that a false signal is sent to businesses, such as the housing market. This means that they'll then build more houses than there is an actual demand for until eventually the market seeks to correct itself, which is the recession.

 

[Iriemon]

When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates it means that a false signal is sent to businesses, such as the housing market. This means that they'll then build more houses than there is an actual demand for until eventually the market seeks to correct itself, which is the recession.

Thanks for clarifying that. So why isn't all that building activity going on now? The rates are down to about zero.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates it means that a false signal is sent to businesses, such as the housing market. This means that they'll then build more houses than there is an actual demand for until eventually the market seeks to correct itself, which is the recession.

Thanks for clarifying that. So why isn't all that building activity going on now? The rates are down to about zero.

It's certainly not going on at the levels that it was, but we're in the recession so technically there should be no building going on. We need to sell the houses that are already built and let their prices fall.

 

[Iriemon]

When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates it means that a false signal is sent to businesses, such as the housing market. This means that they'll then build more houses than there is an actual demand for until eventually the market seeks to correct itself, which is the recession.

Thanks for clarifying that. So why isn't all that building activity going on now? The rates are down to about zero.

It's certainly not going on at the levels that it was, but we're in the recession so technically there should be no building going on. We need to sell the houses that are already built and let their prices fall.

So low Fed rates don't necessarily induce over building. Perhaps there are other factors at issue like market demand, supply, and speculation.

 

[mash107]

When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates it means that a false signal is sent to businesses, such as the housing market. This means that they'll then build more houses than there is an actual demand for until eventually the market seeks to correct itself, which is the recession.

Thanks for clarifying that. So why isn't all that building activity going on now? The rates are down to about zero.

Prices are way too high to make sense. 19 million unoccupied homes, and you want builders to build to sell their product at an inflated price? You can never, ever defy supply and demand. All the lowering of interest rates do spur artificial demand, which is temporary, and causes an inflation in prices, that inevitably collapses once the artificial demand vanishes. Imagine if it were a ponzi scheme. The demand is there first, and then people catch wind that it's too good to be true, and it soon collapses. I wouldn't be surprised to see college tuition and car prices in a similar bubble.

It is fallacious to think one can oppose this recession with the same recipe that brought us into this mess. The only victim will be the dollar and freedom when the government is through. It's also fallacious to think that government can help us out. They are certainly not all-knowing, omnipotent superbeings that can fight the forces of economics (or hurricaines, ala Katrina) to all of our favor. They are just like us. The Politburo was no more successful in staving off crises than any government could possibly be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks for clarifying that. So why isn't all that building activity going on now? The rates are down to about zero.

It's certainly not going on at the levels that it was, but we're in the recession so technically there should be no building going on. We need to sell the houses that are already built and let their prices fall.

So low Fed rates don't necessarily induce over building. Perhaps there are other factors at issue like market demand, supply, and speculation.

Not during the bust period when house prices should be falling dramatically. Also, this doesn't just apply to the housing market, I simply used them as an example because they're highly relevant in our current economic downturn.

 

[neurosport]

So low Fed rates don't necessarily induce over building. Perhaps there are other factors at issue like market demand, supply, and speculation.

Fed rates initially set off the avalanche. The prices begin to rise which causes speculation. Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon to make some dough.

then it continues all by itself :

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then at some point the people realize that they all got fucked and they try to get rid of their houses but at that point nobody is stupid enough to buy it from them.

housing values drop off a cliff since nobody can sell their house and Fed tries to stop this collapse by brining interest down to zero but its already too late because people already FIGURED OUT that houses are USELESS.

housing thing was a self sustaining chain reaction driven by sheer CRETINISM of people. however it was SET OFF by the Fed. and when it started getting out of control instead of putting on the brakes Fed let it escalate until it exploded.

but housing bubble was not the only bubble. low interest rates turn entire economy into a giant bubble. the same thing happened to stocks that happened to housing values and for the same reason.

 

[Iriemon]

When the Fed artificially lowers interest rates it means that a false signal is sent to businesses, such as the housing market. This means that they'll then build more houses than there is an actual demand for until eventually the market seeks to correct itself, which is the recession.

Thanks for clarifying that. So why isn't all that building activity going on now? The rates are down to about zero.

Prices are way too high to make sense. 19 million unoccupied homes, and you want builders to build to sell their product at an inflated price? You can never, ever defy supply and demand. All the lowering of interest rates do spur artificial demand, which is temporary, and causes an inflation in prices, that inevitably collapses once the artificial demand vanishes. Imagine if it were a ponzi scheme. The demand is there first, and then people catch wind that it's too good to be true, and it soon collapses. I wouldn't be surprised to see college tuition and car prices in a similar bubble.

You're pretty much reinforcing my point -- that there are many factors other than the fed's interest rate policy that determine market activity and it might go thru a speculative "bubble".

It is fallacious to think one can oppose this recession with the same recipe that brought us into this mess. The only victim will be the dollar and freedom when the government is through. It's also fallacious to think that government can help us out. They are certainly not all-knowing, omnipotent superbeings that can fight the forces of economics (or hurricaines, ala Katrina) to all of our favor. They are just like us. The Politburo was no more successful in staving off crises than any government could possibly be.

No one is talking about a command economy. However, there are certainly capabilities a Govt has and only the Govt has, including the ability to direct large sums of money, influence interest rates, create demand for certain products and services, redistribution of wealth. If you believe that the application of these things can cause harm then it follows that a better application can cause benefit, or at least reduce harm. We also know that markets go thru cycles independent of what the Govt does, some of which can be very severe.

So I agree with you we should not expect perfection from the Govt. I disagree that that implies we're better off for it to do nothing.