Conquer Club

I really am starting to like her a lot:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/elizabeth-warren-obama-put-bad-banks-trial

Never heard of her until now but I'll +1 to the like

I enjoy her points and she seems to be calling attention to a few things I care about: Repocrats and rent-seeking, to name two.

I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.

I'm not. She holds an imaginary vision of regulators and bankers/analysts/etc. That's not safe.

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.

I'm with BBS on this one. Plus, she is the biggest elected Communist we have in service. The God of Class Warfare casts a million smiles down upon her. She is the one that was making the claim that since corporations cannot function without government roads, the corporation are completely dependent on the government, and therefore the government can take whatever it wants.

thegreekdog wrote:I wonder about her supporters though given the comments at the end of the article.

Well, you know, it is Mother Jones, after all. <chuckle>

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, tgd. Pretty much sums it up for me.

I'm concerned about Warren because she believes (somehow) that the regulators should "get tougher" on banks and (somehow) that would fix the system (e.g. no more guiltless settlements). The solution is more than doing X instead of Y from the regulator's perspective because the source of power from which banks draw influence and manipulate public policy is through the regulatory bodies (SEC, FTC, and the central banking system) and key members of Congress--namely, those who serve on the relevant committees.

Without addressing those fundamental sources of corruption, then her rhetoric for "justice" is simply pandering to the electorate. She's really not going to solve any fundamental issues, but more importantly (for her) she will nonetheless improve her chances of securing her political career. Why? Because the people think that she can and is willing to "the issues" (but not the fundamental issues--which the general electorate doesn't understand, unfortunately).

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: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.

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.

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." She's not taking it to the next logical step. And I think she's not taking it to the next logical step because she knows that her party's power base is reliant upon those same financial institutions and banks and because her political party is as much to blame for the laws and the non-enforcement of them as anyone else.

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. She's not going far enough.

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.

Self-regulation is the alternative which is frequently dismissed because it undermines the status quo, which is enjoyed by those currently exercising that status quo to their benefit (generally, large banks, regulators/bankers--who are hard to distinguish these days, and politicians.

So, it's entirely relevant--depending on one's goals. Mine is to have a fairer, more competitive market for finance, and I want lesser corruption within the political sphere. You won't get that with the status quo, nor with Warren's shouting about having the regulators never seek settlements or pursuing her imaginary laws. Again it depends on one's goals. Using the current means (government-imposed law enforcement/regulation) is just counter-productive, which is why the discussion of alternatives is necessary.


Her impression from the article provides a rosy-colored painting about allegedly clear rules which the selfless bureaucrats would enforce. It's not that simple: the rules are not clear, and the bureaucrats aren't rabid enforcers--if it doesn't benefit them. Furthermore, even if the rules are being enforced, the enforcement becomes distorted, thus absurd (e.g. punishing one ratings firm for failing to predict the financial crisis--which is an unreasonable punishment--, yet not punishing the other ratings firms for doing the same thing). There's plenty of problems with laws 'against' insider trading, which itself is vague--yet there are many politicians who benefit from inside information without punishment. Warren's impression is this one-sided, herpderp THEY'RE EVIL, WE MUST BE GOOD story.

You won't get what you want from government as long as the politicians and regulators are just as self-interested as everyone else. That's the main point, but Warren either does understand that yet isn't willing to say that to the electorate for fear of losing her career, or she doesn't understand any of that--which is dangerous.

(and what tgd said. Good analogy, tgd).

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?

She is a great patriotic American we need more like her in office

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.

Well at least you explained it.

Oh wait, you haven't explained anything except to claim that she holds an imaginary view of regulators, bankers and analysts. Well done, Phatscotty.

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.

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.

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.

The only order that a truly free market creates is monopolization which, ironically enough, goes against the idea of the free market. Well, that and the abuse of the worker.

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?

Yes, although "become" is not really the appropriate word. It's been blurred for a long-ass time.

crispybits wrote:Am I misunderstanding something here or is there some delicious irony being served up?

I'm not sure what the irony is. Here's a good story illustrating the bad effects of rent-seeking on a competitive market:

A politician, let's call him Barney, wins an election and eventually becomes the head of the Congressional committee that writes and decides on banking and finance laws. Barney's major supporters and campaign contributors consist of major banks and financial institutions. Barney, due to his political affiliations, write a "tough" law on banks and financial institutions. I put "tough" in quotes because it's not really a tough law because Barney's major supports consist of major banks and financial institutions. In any event, the law passes with overwhelming support and everyone is happy. The law, which is very broad, calls for regulations to be drafted by a new regulatory body (the Banking Commission). The Banking Commission is made up of people selected by Barney and others on Barney's Congressional committee and appointed by the president (a member of Barney's own political party). The people selected to be on the Banking Commission are all ex-employees of major banks and financial institutions. And not just ex-employees, former vice presidents of said major banks and financial institutions. These new Banking Commission guys write regulations that "interpret" the law that Barney assisted in drafting. The new Banking Commission guys also hire various people they know from the major banks and financial institutions to serve as regulators, enforcing both the laws and regulations.

So... what has happened? The major banks and financial institutions are essentially writing the laws and regulations that are ostensibly supposed to hold the major banks and financial institutions in check. They are also essentially charged with enforcing themselves. What they are able to do is skirt the stated purpose of the law and, simultaneously, eliminate competition from banks and financial institutions that are not "major" banks and financial institutions through the use of the law and regulatory bodies of which they hold sway.

So, instead of having a regulated banking and financial industry that is regulated by non-partisan and uninterested third parties, we have a select few banks and financial institutions that regulate themselves into more prominent positions, thereby eliminating competition. Furthermore, we've grown the size of government to the benefit of said banks and financial institutions, which calls for an increase in both spending and taxes.

So the question is what to do about it? Do we still trust the government? Can we fix the system? If so, at what point? Alternatively, can we let banks and financial institutions self-regulate through the market? Why not? Does the current system work in a satisfactory manner?

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.

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.

When has the free market shown it couldn't take care of the problem?

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.

See above (you fast-posted me).

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?

Well of course, if they were only allowed to make their own rules, they certainly would just do the right thing and they certainly wouldn't collude. Talk about imaginary things...