Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:This doesn't make sense because the bailouts could still happen under that scenario. After all, they were "too big to fail".
The bailouts could still happen, but they wouldn't. It's my scenario.
So you don't want any actual discussion then.
Seriously?
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:There was no bailout of the cheesesteak place down the street from my house, for example.
It would be difficult for that to be considered "to big to fail", as well.
Who determines whether a bank or financial institution is "too big to fail?"
Woodruff wrote:[
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:Never mind that, as I already pointed out, we have options now and nobody uses them.
What options?
I already talked about the fact that people could have been availing themselves of smaller more local banks and credit unions, particularly since the bailouts. Yet they haven't. Why? Because in the "free market", advertising controls everything and advertising does not need to be honest. Therefore, those who can pay for the most and best advertising, regardless of their actual business practices, will garner the business. If we already have perfectly valid options and aren't taking them, why would that change when the banks are no longer regulated?
Because the banks that failed would fail and not be propped up by government bailouts and government regulations that they draft.
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:Anti-trust laws no longer apply. Hell, just look at the collusion amongst phone companies, as well as colleges and universities. It is in business' interests to support one another at a certain level, and it is being allowed.
They no longer apply? Why not?
Don't ask me, I'm not the one expected to enforce them.
Pat Summerall: The Woodruff Spocks come in to punt. And there's a booming kick!
The answer is because the colleges/universities and phone companies are engaged in rent-seeking. So, again, if anti-trust laws don't apply to those institutions, it's because the government is not enforcing them. And then government is not enforcing them because they get dollars or other benefits from those institutions. So, again, why is our current system better than an alternative?
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:The idea of not regulating banks at all strikes me as honestly insane.
Okay, just to make sure I understand:
Current situation - Government collects tax dollars from taxpayers and uses that money to not regulate banks sufficiently because said banks write the laws, support the regulators, and support the politicians. = Not insane.
Potential situation - Government collects no tax dollars and free market "regulates" the banks itself. = Insane
Got it.
You've done an excellent job of mischaracterizing my position. Well done, Phatscotty.
Woodruff wrote:So you don't want any actual discussion then.
Look dude, explain your position better instead of saying "thegreekdog's position is insane" and you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks that just make you look like a douchebag.
For the third or fourth time, I'm telling you the differences between our current position and the free market position and I'm telling you the free market position is net better. It's net better because (a) banks that fail will be allowed to fail and (b) you don't have to pay taxes so that banks can regulate themselves.
You've yet to make any argument that the current position is better except to point out that a free market system would mean worker abuse and monopolies which have nothing to do with a discussion of financial institutions and to make ad hominem attacks. Either come up with some kind of halfway decent argument or stay the f*ck out of this thread.
Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 8:46 pm