Moderator: Community Team
I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.
thegreekdog wrote:I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.
And so it begins. That rhetoric will lead to great power for her.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.
The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.
And so it begins. That rhetoric will lead to great power for her.
Not a chance. She's going after those who provide the power. In this day and age, that is a highly ineffective strategy for gaining the power.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.
The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.
The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.
And so it begins. That rhetoric will lead to great power for her.
Not a chance. She's going after those who provide the power. In this day and age, that is a highly ineffective strategy for gaining the power.
I'm surprised at BBS's response. She appears to be in favor of eliminating the rent-seeking done by banks and other financial institutions, which I think BBS would be in favor of. I don't believe she holds an imaginary view of regulators and bankers given the complete lack of oversight that the financial industry has.
Two caveats:
(1) I think there should be no or limited oversight of banks and financial institutions (so Ms. Warren and I would part ways on that point).
(2) The only reason there should be any oversight is if banks and financial institutions receive government funds, which they do.
So my preference, which would be at odds with Warren, is to have no government funds for financial institutions and no or limited oversight. If BBS also has that preference (which I believe he does) then I can understand why he does not agree with Warren.
crispybits wrote:Surely it's incumbent on the government to make laws that we agree with and enforce them (because the former is meaningless without the latter). Those laws could be liberal or strict, but once made they need to be enforced. What exactly the law says is one discussion, finding cost-effective and meaningful ways to ensure those laws are enforced is a separate (but related) discussion.
crispybits wrote:Without going back and reading the article though, the impression it gave me was EW saying that there are laws, and that the government need to enforce those laws, at least in a single high publicity case, in order to make the compromises and plea bargains and out of court settlements good value for the population.
Self-regulation is a different topic entirely, or at least that's what I took from reading it just after it was posted.
crispybits wrote:Without going back and reading the article though, the impression it gave me was EW saying that there are laws, and that the government need to enforce those laws, at least in a single high publicity case, in order to make the compromises and plea bargains and out of court settlements good value for the population.
Self-regulation is a different topic entirely, or at least that's what I took from reading it just after it was posted.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.
The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.
Right, that's it, Woodruff. That's exactly my position.
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.
The imaginary vision that they should do their job? I knew you wouldn't like her.BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.
And so it begins. That rhetoric will lead to great power for her.
Not a chance. She's going after those who provide the power. In this day and age, that is a highly ineffective strategy for gaining the power.
I'm surprised at BBS's response. She appears to be in favor of eliminating the rent-seeking done by banks and other financial institutions, which I think BBS would be in favor of. I don't believe she holds an imaginary view of regulators and bankers given the complete lack of oversight that the financial industry has.
Two caveats:
(1) I think there should be no or limited oversight of banks and financial institutions (so Ms. Warren and I would part ways on that point).
(2) The only reason there should be any oversight is if banks and financial institutions receive government funds, which they do.
So my preference, which would be at odds with Warren, is to have no government funds for financial institutions and no or limited oversight. If BBS also has that preference (which I believe he does) then I can understand why he does not agree with Warren.
BigBallinStalin wrote:crispybits wrote:Surely it's incumbent on the government to make laws that we agree with and enforce them (because the former is meaningless without the latter). Those laws could be liberal or strict, but once made they need to be enforced. What exactly the law says is one discussion, finding cost-effective and meaningful ways to ensure those laws are enforced is a separate (but related) discussion.
There's more to order than government-imposed order.
crispybits wrote:Hang on, so self-regulation is the solution to the problem caused because government and big banks are in each others' pockets and the line between bankers and regulators has become blurred?
crispybits wrote:Am I misunderstanding something here or is there some delicious irony being served up?
thegreekdog wrote:crispybits wrote:Without going back and reading the article though, the impression it gave me was EW saying that there are laws, and that the government need to enforce those laws, at least in a single high publicity case, in order to make the compromises and plea bargains and out of court settlements good value for the population.
Self-regulation is a different topic entirely, or at least that's what I took from reading it just after it was posted.
Ignoring whether Warren is pandering (I think she is - but I also think she can both pander and make good points), she is calling attention to a particular problem, but not in the way that she should call attention to the problem.
As BBS suggests, she says "We're not enforcing the laws in a way that makes them effective" but what she should say is "Here's why we're not enforcing the laws and why the laws are written with loopholes."
thegreekdog wrote:To make an analogy, it's as if there are a bunch of employees goofing off instead of working, which no one likes (ostensibly). But the bosses join in and encourage the goofing off and wrote the rules specifically letting people goof off. Elizabeth Warren is making a speech to the company's shareholders saying that they should fire the employees, but not change the rules or fire the bosses.
thegreekdog wrote:She's not going far enough.
Woodruff wrote:I don't really understand the idea that they should have no or limited oversight. Haven't they proven the need for it? It's not like the free market will take care of it...it's clearly shown that it won't.
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:crispybits wrote:Without going back and reading the article though, the impression it gave me was EW saying that there are laws, and that the government need to enforce those laws, at least in a single high publicity case, in order to make the compromises and plea bargains and out of court settlements good value for the population.
Self-regulation is a different topic entirely, or at least that's what I took from reading it just after it was posted.
Ignoring whether Warren is pandering (I think she is - but I also think she can both pander and make good points), she is calling attention to a particular problem, but not in the way that she should call attention to the problem.
As BBS suggests, she says "We're not enforcing the laws in a way that makes them effective" but what she should say is "Here's why we're not enforcing the laws and why the laws are written with loopholes."
The loopholes aren't the problem. The lack of effective response to violating the law is the problem.thegreekdog wrote:To make an analogy, it's as if there are a bunch of employees goofing off instead of working, which no one likes (ostensibly). But the bosses join in and encourage the goofing off and wrote the rules specifically letting people goof off. Elizabeth Warren is making a speech to the company's shareholders saying that they should fire the employees, but not change the rules or fire the bosses.
If the current laws are not being enforced, writing different laws will not result in their being enforced.thegreekdog wrote:She's not going far enough.
This confuses me, given that you don't believe they should be regulated at all.
crispybits wrote:Hang on, so self-regulation is the solution to the problem caused because government and big banks are in each others' pockets and the line between bankers and regulators has become blurred? Am I misunderstanding something here or is there some delicious irony being served up?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee