Walstreet Reform - New financial rules might not prevent next crisis

[Gremlin-USA]

What is this Administration doing, playing twiddly winks?

Sounds to me like another Failed BO Policy, he loves to waste time, when the heck is he going to work on Jobs, you know that strange philosophy that pays peoples bills

WASHINGTON – The most sweeping changes to financial rules since the Great Depression might not prevent another crisis.

Experts say the financial regulatory bill approved by the Senate last week, and a similar bill that passed the House, include loopholes and gaps that weaken their impact. Many provisions depend on the effectiveness of regulatory agencies — the same agencies that failed to foresee the last crisis.

New financial rules might not prevent next crisis - Yahoo! News

 

[boedicca]

Of course they won't prevent it. The reforms exclude Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and actually guarantee that the Feds will bail out firms that are Too Big To Fail.

 

[Cuyo]

Even if there was a law against it, we're always going to "bail out" firms that are "too big to fail." You think we'll ever stand idly by and watch a cascade collapse of our economic system because there's a "law against bailouts?"

The key is not letting firms get to that level, or instead of just infusing them with cash like we did this last go-round, buy them up, make them solvent, and sell off the pieces like we've been doing for decades.

I hate to tell you guys, but it's Republicans that won't permit more sweeping legislation that forces these issues.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, letting them fail is the only solution. The reasons they take irresponsible risks is because they know they will be bailed out, and that politicians pass laws requiring them to take such risks in order to benefit constitutents (with the condition that the risk will be socialized while private is privatized).

 

[Cuyo]

Actually, letting them fail is the only solution. The reasons they take irresponsible risks is because they know they will be bailed out, and that politicians pass laws requiring them to take such risks in order to benefit constitutents (with the condition that the risk will be socialized while private is privatized).

I think we had a nice long talk about this once, didn't we?

I agree to an extent. Taking irresponsible risks with the cushion of government in the event of collapse is a real problem. Now when you talk about "Letting them fail," do you subscribe to a hands-off approach to the meltdown we've just experienced? Hoover did...
Hooverville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why I say we can't let them get that big, to have such an interest in our economy that we cannot let them fail. If they are that big and do fail, they need to be acquired and liquidated, not handed $700B and told "Pay us back when you can." It's a real tricky thing ain't it... But I whole-heartedly disagree that it's a "Democratic" problem much less an "Obama" problem. Christ, Obama took office amid the crisis. To listen to some of the geniuses around here you'd swear he caused it.

 

[Oddball]

Hoover failed because of too much intervention and tinkering, not because he didn't meddle enough.

 

[Cuyo]

Hoover failed because of too much intervention and tinkering, not because he didn't meddle enough.

Hoover? You're not serious? And Boe you're not seriously thanking him?

Is that the position you're going to take here, Hoover worsened the depression by doing "Too much?" C'mon what am I getting punk'd here?

 

[Gremlin-USA]

There was only one thing I remember in this Bill that was actually good, the fact the Banks and Insurance Companies could not outright Lie to it's prospective Clients (something like that)

 

[boedicca]

Hoover failed because of too much intervention and tinkering, not because he didn't meddle enough.

Hoover? You're not serious? And Boe you're not seriously thanking him?

Is that the position you're going to take here, Hoover worsened the depression by doing "Too much?" C'mon what am I getting punk'd here?

Hoover pursued big government policies: central planning, Farm Bureau to manipulate prices and supplies, high tariffs on imported goods, Reconstruction Finance Corp doing bailouts (sound familiar?), huge deficit spending (yet more proof that Keynes was wrong), huge peacetime tax increase....

Yep, Hoover meddled way too much.

 

[Cuyo]

Nobody's gonna jump on that grenade?

Herbert Hoover was nothing short of infamous for standing by and doing nothing as the condition worsened, insisting that the markets would self-correct!

Dude, [that is board member "The Dude," not just an interjection] this is nearly as dumb as your insistence that Hitler was a communist or some such noise. Usually I just disagree with you but once in a while *BOOM* Really dumb. Shame on your mis-informedness, your dishonesty, or both! And shame on you Boe for jumping on board with him!

 

[boedicca]

That's a leftwing MEME. Hoover actually implemented the very same type of Big Government measures that are being promoted by the Obama Admin today.

 

[Cuyo]

That's a leftwing MEME. Hoover actually implemented the very same type of Big Government measures that are being promoted by the Obama Admin today.

Oh is that part of the left wing conspiracy? Rewriting history books to program me as a communist or some such batshit noise?

Other than raising tarriffs (which spread the depression overseas), the programs you speak of weren't implemented until 1932, three years into the depression and just months before he got his ass handed to him by FDR for his failure.

Jesus Christ why do I bother with you people?

 

[boedicca]

I cited several of Hoover's policies which are clearly of the progressive persuasion. All you've done is promote an inaccurate characterization promoted by progressive academia which has an agenda to Blame Hoover to deflect attention from the nature of his policies.

 

[Cuyo]

I cited several of Hoover's policies which are clearly of the progressive persuasion. All you've done is promote an inaccurate characterization promoted by progressive academia which has an agenda to Blame Hoover to deflect attention from the nature of his policies.

You're insane!

 

[boedicca]

Please tell me which of Hoover's policies to which I referred are not consistent with Progressivism.

 

[Toro]

Hoover's so-called interventionist policies had little to do with the Depression. That is ideological revisionism.

As for the OP, there will be financial crises in the future, regardless of what is in the bill.

 

[Cuyo]

Please tell me which of Hoover's policies to which I referred are not consistent with Progressivism.

Whether or not those policies are consistent with progressivism is not the subject at hand. You have claimed that they created and/or worsened the Great Depression.

1929-32 Hoover was STOIC about doing nothing; like I said, infamously insistent that the markets would correct themselves. True, he initiated tarriffs to encourage domestic consumption, which served to initiate the same from other nations and brought international trade to a stand still; this did nothing more than to spread the depression overseas. The "Progressive" policies you speak of began in 1932 amid tremendous pressure from constituents and advisors pointing out that 3 years of doing nothing had been nothing short of disastrous, with unemployment at 25%+ and foreclosures up and people living in shanty towns (Hoovervilles). These "Progressive" policies continued and were expanded under FDR and unemployment fell to 9% by the end of his first term.

Whatever, say things are different today but saying "Hoover meddled too much and that magnified the depression" is absolutely bozo insane stupid, akin to saying the Holocaust was caused by Hitler being too nice to Jews.

 

[Oddball]

Hoover's so-called interventionist policies had little to do with the Depression. That is ideological revisionism.

Ideological revisionism my ass.

We aren't taught much, if anything, at all about the post WWI depression, because Harding's and Coolidge's hands-off policy actually worked.

The revisionism comes in when the Keynesians falsely claim that Hoover was the hands-off president, when in actual reality he fiddled and tinkered his way into turning a bad recession into the Great Depression.

 

[Activist Too]

It is quite insane, really. They are betting on Hollywood movie success, and fishing permits/catches. All of this is moving more control of the resources that used to be divided among many, into the hands of the greedy few.

There is also the machinations of the financially sophisticated in moving money offshore to Hidden Treuhand Accounts, where they can remain invisible, and unaccountable.

Read Shelly Stark's book on the subject, Hidden Treuhand: How...

 

[Toro]

Saying that Hoover was responsible for the Depression because of his activist agenda is as credible as Barney Frank's assertion that the GOP was responsible for the GSEs.

In fact, Hoover's deficits were smaller than most deficits since 1980, his activist policies meek and enforcement virtually nonexistant. It is an argument I hear only from ideologues.