Elizabeth Warren

[Woodruff]

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?

The free market results in monopolization and abuse of the worker. The idea that consumers will have a choice when banks are allowed to set their own rules (resulting in no real choice) is silly.

[thegreekdog]

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...

Yeah, that's kind of the point. They already make their own rules. But instead of 100% of them making their own rules, 2% of them do and then crowd out the remaining 98%. And then they also make sure that your tax dollars allow them to benefit themselves (to your detriment). Essentially, you're paying money to the government so that a handful of banks can write self-interested laws. Much better than free market, right?

[thegreekdog]

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?

The free market results in monopolization and abuse of the worker. The idea that consumers will have a choice when banks are allowed to set their own rules (resulting in no real choice) is silly.

I'm pretty sure Ms. Warren is not talking about monopolization and abuse of the worker.

But I have no problem with anti-trust laws and I have no problem with unions. Not sure what working conditions and monopolies have to do with banking laws, so you'll have to help me here.

[Woodruff]

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...

Yeah, that's kind of the point. They already make their own rules. But instead of 100% of them making their own rules, 2% of them do and then crowd out the remaining 98%. And then they also make sure that your tax dollars allow them to benefit themselves (to your detriment). Essentially, you're paying money to the government so that a handful of banks can write self-interested laws. Much better than free market, right?

No different than free market. We already have a better choice than the major banks, and that is the smaller banks and credit unions. But how many people avail themselves of those better choices? They don't, and they won't. That's why the free market doesn't work...advertising wins the free market, and advertising isn't honest but too many people treat it like it is.

[Woodruff]

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?

The free market results in monopolization and abuse of the worker. The idea that consumers will have a choice when banks are allowed to set their own rules (resulting in no real choice) is silly.

I'm pretty sure Ms. Warren is not talking about monopolization and abuse of the worker.

Of course she isn't. It hasn't even come up. I'm simply pointing out why the free market doesn't work. Just like communism, it simply cannot work unfettered because people suck.

[thegreekdog]

No different than free market. We already have a better choice than the major banks, and that is the smaller banks and credit unions. But how many people avail themselves of those better choices? They don't, and they won't. That's why the free market doesn't work...advertising wins the free market, and advertising isn't honest but too many people treat it like it is.

Let's say the free market results in all the current financial institution issues like fraud.

(1) Your tax dollars don't go to the government, which, as I think I've demonstrated, is not helping you.
(2) You get to keep more of your money and you don't have to indirectly use your money to benefit fraudulent financial institutions through laws that the financial institutions have written!

Let's say 2008 crash happens in an unfettered free market.

(1) No bailouts using your tax dollars to those same financial institutions
(2) Instead, the financial institutions crash, are eliminated, and new financial institutions take their place with the idea that they maybe shouldn't do the same shit as the old financial institutions.
(3) Your tax dollars don't go to failed financial institutions with no incentive not to f*ck up again.

So yeah, a free market would be a lot better.

Of course she isn't. It hasn't even come up. I'm simply pointing out why the free market doesn't work. Just like communism, it simply cannot work unfettered because people suck.

I have never advocated an all-or-nothing position. I certainly support anti-trust laws and unions. Which is why it does matter what Warren is talking about in this context. There is nothing more frustrating than your line of argument Woodruff. You know how Phatscotty calls you a socialist when you make a perfectly reasonable point on something? That's what you're doing here. Essentially you're saying that because I think the free market in the context of the financial industry would do a better job of regulating and would cost less that I'm in favor of a free market in everything and therefore love worker abuse and monopolies. Please stop.

[Woodruff]

Let's say 2008 crash happens in an unfettered free market.
(1) No bailouts using your tax dollars to those same financial institutions
(2) Instead, the financial institutions crash, are eliminated, and new financial institutions take their place with the idea that they maybe shouldn't do the same shit as the old financial institutions.
(3) Your tax dollars don't go to failed financial institutions with no incentive not to f*ck up again.

This doesn't make sense because the bailouts could still happen under that scenario. After all, they were "too big to fail".

Never mind that, as I already pointed out, we have options now and nobody uses them.

Of course she isn't. It hasn't even come up. I'm simply pointing out why the free market doesn't work. Just like communism, it simply cannot work unfettered because people suck.

I have never advocated an all-or-nothing position. I certainly support anti-trust laws and unions. Which is why it does matter what Warren is talking about in this context. There is nothing more frustrating than your line of argument Woodruff. You know how Phatscotty calls you a socialist when you make a perfectly reasonable point on something? That's what you're doing here. Essentially you're saying that because I think the free market in the context of the financial industry would do a better job of regulating and would cost less that I'm in favor of a free market in everything and therefore love worker abuse and monopolies. Please stop.[/quote]

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. The idea of not regulating banks at all strikes me as honestly insane.

[Woodruff]

I have never advocated an all-or-nothing position.

"No or very little oversight" sure seems like one.

[thegreekdog]

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. There was no bailout of the cheesesteak place down the street from my house, for example.

Never mind that, as I already pointed out, we have options now and nobody uses them.

What options?

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?

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.

[thegreekdog]

I have never advocated an all-or-nothing position.

"No or very little oversight" sure seems like one.

Wow... out of context much douchebag?

[crispybits]

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...

Yeah, that's kind of the point. They already make their own rules. But instead of 100% of them making their own rules, 2% of them do and then crowd out the remaining 98%. And then they also make sure that your tax dollars allow them to benefit themselves (to your detriment). Essentially, you're paying money to the government so that a handful of banks can write self-interested laws. Much better than free market, right?

Firstly, having quickly proof-read I may be going off into a more generalised tangent here, but that's what this forum is for right?

The solution being that the government steps out and the industry regulates itself seems to be like saying that I should get to decide which laws I will follow as a citizen, and which laws I should be able to choose to ignore simply because I don't like them.

Wouldn't it be better to institute a political system where the profit-seeking sector of society is not allowed to influence the legislative sector of society? Just like we have separation of church and state (I say "we" slightly ironically here coming from the UK) wouldn't a more elegant solution to have separation of markets and state. The political parties could be funded enough from taxes to advertise their policies at election times, and would certainly still gain significant media coverage during those times, and politicians and political parties could be outright banned from accepting external contributions to their funds from any other group.

Of course, for this to happen the politicians would have to vote for it, and that would be like turkeys voting for christmas (or thanksgiving - I dunno if you yanks eat turkey at christmas as universally as we do). It's not going to happen. But while we're talking about ideological systems rather than practical ones then I for one would certainly favour a society where the legislative and judiciary branches of the system are kept completely separate from the commercial, the religious, and all other sectors, and should be concentrating only on making laws that provide the most benefit to the country as a whole.

In effect, and I haven't really thought this out as much as I'd like to have despite it being a seed in my mind for some time, I'd like a 2 part government. The legislative and judiciary, concentrated on ensuring the rules are in place for a just, fair and free society, and the economic, infrastructure and welfare branch concentrated on ensuring that the economy is as efficient as possible and that everyone receives certain basic services like education and healthcare (both up to a certain level), plus the road and rail networks and power and water systems and that sort of stuff is all up to scratch.

That doesn't necessarily mean big government either, you could still have a 2 part small government system, but keep the two parts separate, and keep both separate from any outside influence except the democratic influence of politicians having to do a good job to get themselves re-elected every 4-5 years by the public. There is some crossover between the two parts, but that can be dealt with by installing vetos based on certain principles.

I'll leave it there though my mind is going off into a massive rambling flow about how it can all work, but the point is that unless you can honestly say that you and everyone you know, if given the choice to obey or disobey any law you like, would always choose to follow the course of action that is in the interests of widder society, rather than just yourself, then I honestly don't think self-regulation and free market forces are the solution to every problem.

[thegreekdog]

Wouldn't it be better to institute a political system where the profit-seeking sector of society is not allowed to influence the legislative sector of society?

Yes. A billion times yes.

[Woodruff]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

I have never advocated an all-or-nothing position.

"No or very little oversight" sure seems like one.

Wow... out of context much douchebag?

You stated explicitly that you believed the banking industry should have no or very little oversight. You stated it explicitly. How is that taking you out of context? Here you go:

(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).

[Woodruff]

Wouldn't it be better to institute a political system where the profit-seeking sector of society is not allowed to influence the legislative sector of society?

Yes. A billion times yes.

Explicitly and solely public funding of elections would go a long way toward helping that, I believe.

[Woodruff]

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.

Oh Jesus Christ, do you ever discuss anything rationally?

[Phatscotty]

You know how Phatscotty calls you a socialist when you make a perfectly reasonable point on something?

You are fucking dreaming. That has never happened, not once.

How about you stop putting your foot in your mouth

[ooge]

Wouldn't it be better to institute a political system where the profit-seeking sector of society is not allowed to influence the legislative sector of society?

Yes. A billion times yes.

Explicitly and solely public funding of elections would go a long way toward helping that, I believe.

Bravo!!! Reagan carter was the last public funded election.I am almost beginning to believe that the downturn in the economy that occurs after elections is due to wasting all that money on elections.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Ah, so when someone doesn't explain something enough, and instead of asking any questions, the most "logical" approach of yours is to create a strawman fallacy. How's that modus operandi working out for ya?


read TGD's and I's response here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190733#p4171183

TGD's explanation, which I agree with:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190733#p4171223

My explanation, mostly on Warren's rubbish:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190733#p4171225

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Citations needed.

Oh, would you be interested in reading some books?

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's say 2008 crash happens in an unfettered free market.
(1) No bailouts using your tax dollars to those same financial institutions
(2) Instead, the financial institutions crash, are eliminated, and new financial institutions take their place with the idea that they maybe shouldn't do the same shit as the old financial institutions.
(3) Your tax dollars don't go to failed financial institutions with no incentive not to f*ck up again.

This doesn't make sense because the bailouts could still happen under that scenario. After all, they were "too big to fail".

Typically, arguments against free markets often confuse current outcomes as products of the free market. Woodruff here is forgetting that (1) the "too big to fail" dilemma was created by decades of government policies, and (2) "too big to fail" is mostly rhetoric with some soundness. In other words, it isn't completely true; it's just said like that in order to justify bailouts to the electorate.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

I think we're operating with different definitions of "self-regulation."

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Inside I'm laughing at the absurdity of this whole thing.

-TG

[thegreekdog]

I have never advocated an all-or-nothing position.

"No or very little oversight" sure seems like one.

Wow... out of context much douchebag?

You stated explicitly that you believed the banking industry should have no or very little oversight. You stated it explicitly. How is that taking you out of context? Here you go:

(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).

It's out of context because I stated it in the context of banks and financial institutions, not in the context of workers and monopolies. If you would stop breaking up every one of my posts, maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen as much.

[thegreekdog]

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?

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?"

[

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.

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?

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.

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.