Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on September 30, 2008, 12:44:47 PM
-
Just heard him on CNN say part of the problem is we overregulate... I must have missed this before because I would have called BS on that sooner. The last thing we need is to hand these banks and corporations more free passes under the retarded notion that they'll responsibly self govern ::) Trusting these guys to watch themselves is exactly why we're in this problem. Did he misspeak or is this his actual thinking?
-
I like Ron Paul's stance on Iraq. Everything else, well, I'm not too crazy about.
-
Just heard him on CNN say part of the problem is we overregulate... I must have missed this before because I would have called BS on that sooner. The last thing we need is to hand these banks and corporations more free passes under the retarded notion that they'll responsibly self govern ::) Trusting these guys to watch themselves is exactly why we're in this problem. Did he misspeak or is this his actual thinking?
You have to understand the context from which he is speaking.
Try to start a restaurant, or even a hotdog stand and you will see what I am talking about. He is talking about the heavy heavy foundation of gov regulation that helps to create the monopolies in the first place.
Once the monopoly is created then it HAS to have government regulation, because there is no chance of competition from smaller businesses.
-
I like Ron Paul's stance on Iraq. Everything else, well, I'm not too crazy about.
What's the "everything else".
-
What's the "everything else".
I don't like his tax plan. It would be effective in the year 1776 but not today. I don't like his isolationist foreign policy for the most part (not totally thought). I disagree with his view of affirmative action. There's other stuff too.
I do admire his views on the drug war, his opposition to the death penalty, his opposition to CAFTA and more.
He's like any other candidate in this respect: he has good points and bad points. It's better to have a Ron Paul in the Congress than not, that's for sure.
-
Just heard him on CNN say part of the problem is we overregulate... I must have missed this before because I would have called BS on that sooner. The last thing we need is to hand these banks and corporations more free passes under the retarded notion that they'll responsibly self govern ::) Trusting these guys to watch themselves is exactly why we're in this problem. Did he misspeak or is this his actual thinking?
A lot of companies do learn. Traveler's almost collapsed the last time the housing bubble burst in the late 80's/early 90's and they ended up being bought out. This time around they avoided jumping onto the bandwagon with the sub-prime mortgages and as a result they were in position to take over a chunk of AIG's market share until the government stepped in and bailed AIG out. Goldman Sachs noticed the bubble bursting in 2006/2007 and hedged a lot of their risky bets too. They would have ridden the storm out if not for paranoid investors.
I personally agree with Paul that they shouldn't regulate more. Let the companies that fucked up fail. No need to punish the rest. Once the government steps in, they don't leave.
Most of the boutique banks are doing fine right now as they didn't go as crazy with the mortgages as everyone else.
Why punish everyone for the actions of a few of the bulge brackets? I'd rather see the ones who fucked up fail instead of getting bailed out.
That said, Paul does have some good policy views and some fucked up ones. Kind of like every other candidate.
-
I don't like his tax plan. It would be effective in the year 1776 but not today. I don't like his isolationist foreign policy for the most part (not totally thought). I disagree with his view of affirmative action. There's other stuff too.
I do admire his views on the drug war, his opposition to the death penalty, his opposition to CAFTA and more.
He's like any other candidate in this respect: he has good points and bad points. It's better to have a Ron Paul in the Congress than not, that's for sure.
As far as his tax plan is concerned are you specifically talking about his plan to get rid of the Income Tax or was it something else?
-
I personally agree with Paul that they shouldn't regulate more. Let the companies that fucked up fail. No need to punish the rest. Once the government steps in, they don't leave.
Do you know what regulation is? It's not bailing compainies out.
-
You have to understand the context from which he is speaking.
Try to start a restaurant, or even a hotdog stand and you will see what I am talking about. He is talking about the heavy heavy foundation of gov regulation that helps to create the monopolies in the first place.
Once the monopoly is created then it HAS to have government regulation, because there is no chance of competition from smaller businesses.
Can you expand on this, provide some quotes so we know exactly where he stands on this. If this goes for the big guys too, and that's what the talk was about, I disagree with him. Less regulation of the corporations aids their monopolies over the small guy.
-
Can you expand on this, provide some quotes so we know exactly where he stands on this. If this goes for the big guys too, and that's what the talk was about, I disagree with him. Less regulation of the corporations aids their monopolies over the small guy.
Government is the backbone for the existence of a monopoly. Governement creates the problem with the use of the law, and then regulation is "needed" to constantly fight/correct it. Our monetary system is the perfect example. Why do you think so many professions require liscenses? This is using government to create a roadblock to restrict the free market. Then you have a monopoly on a trade that now has to be "regulated" because nobody else is legally allowed to compete.
As to the specifics of Ron, he is a proponent of Austrian economics.
Read Ludwig Von Mises
Read Adam Smith
Read Ayn Rand
Read Murray Rothbard
and most importantly...
Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by: Edward Griffen
-
Government is the backbone for the existence of a monopoly. Governement creates the problem with the use of the law, and then regulation is "needed" to constantly fight/correct it. Our monetary system is the perfect example. Why do you think so many professions require liscenses? This is using government to create a roadblock to restrict the free market. Then you have a monopoly on a trade that now has to be "regulated" because nobody else is legally allowed to compete.
As to the specifics of Ron, he is a proponent of Austrian economics.
Read Ludwig Von Mises
Read Adam Smith
Read Ayn Rand
Read Murray Rothbard
and most importantly...
Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by: Edward Griffen
lets keep a distinction here. You can't lump all regulation in the same boat. There is the good, the bad and the ugly. You get rid of the good and I guarantee it aids in monopoly along with a lot of other shit we're seeing the results of now. The system Ron Paul wants might very well work, but it's not where we're at right now, not even close. You indiscriminately support deregulation with these fat cats and everyone else pays the price for their greed. It's like tossing us into a pool of piranha.
See: Robber Barons...
-
lets keep a distinction here. You can't lump all regulation in the same boat. There is the good, the bad and the ugly. You get rid of the good and I guarantee it aids in monopoly along with a lot of other shit we're seeing the results of now. The system Ron Paul wants might very well work, but it's not where we're at right now, not even close. You indiscriminately support deregulation with these fat cats and everyone else pays the price for their greed. It's like tossing us into a pool of piranha.
See: Robber Barons...
The people that need to be regulated IS NOT buisiness,its the dirty,filthy,rotten government that puts tons of rules,laws and regulations on everyone and everything but never seem able to follow the very rules they institute.
-
The people that need to be regulated IS NOT buisiness,its the dirty,filthy,rotten government that puts tons of rules,laws and regulations on everyone and everything but never seem able to follow the very rules they institute.
yea, businessmen are total angels ::) Hello!!!!! When a politician is rotten, who do you think bought them??? ;)
-
yea, businessmen are total angels ::) Hello!!!!! When a politician is rotten, who do you think bought them??? ;)
Politicians are rotten so they can keep their power.They fix NOTHING.Everything they touch turns to shit.Whats their plan for social security,medicade,medicare,thay are all going bankrupt.These thieves wont even touch the subject because anthing they say might kill their chance to stay in power.Id trust Wall street over the congress anyday,and,apparently,so do most Americans as congress has an approval rating of about 17%.Buisiness produces things,politicians redistribute money from those that work to those who wont work.
-
Politicians are rotten so they can keep their power.They fix NOTHING.Everything they touch turns to shit.Whats their plan for social security,medicade,medicare,thay are all going bankrupt.These thieves wont even touch the subject because anthing they say might kill their chance to stay in power.Id trust Wall street over the congress anyday,and,apparently,so do most Americans as congress has an approval rating of about 17%.Buisiness produces things,politicians redistribute money from those that work to those who wont work.
you didn't address my point or rather you seem to deny it and actually I'll repeat the same thing for this post. Who do you think buys the politician? It's so naive to say the politician is rotten but look past the one who paid them. Corporations are the biggest influence on today's politicians.
-
you didn't address my point, and actually I'll repeat the same thing for this post. Who do you think buys the politician? It's so naive to say the politician is rotten but look past the one who paid them.
There are lobbyists that represent business to try and get advantageous deals and bills passed to benefit them.Now,that seems to be logical.You own,or represent a business and you try to get an advantagre to make your business more profitable.
Now,I will ask you.Do these men have no moral fiber.Do they care more for themselves then the people they are supposed to represent?Are they so shallow and corrupt that they cant help but sell out the country>I will say it again,big business is MUCH more trustworthy,much more honest,much more ethical then those filthy scumbags making laws for us to follow but cant follow themselves.
-
As far as his tax plan is concerned are you specifically talking about his plan to get rid of the Income Tax or was it something else?
Yeah. I don't think repealing the 16th amendment is a great idea. I also don't care much for consumption taxes as a replacement. Getting rid of the IRS is just plain nonsense. In any tax scheme, a regulatory entity is needed to ensure compliance.
-
Government is the backbone for the existence of a monopoly. Governement creates the problem with the use of the law, and then regulation is "needed" to constantly fight/correct it. Our monetary system is the perfect example. Why do you think so many professions require liscenses? This is using government to create a roadblock to restrict the free market. Then you have a monopoly on a trade that now has to be "regulated" because nobody else is legally allowed to compete.
As to the specifics of Ron, he is a proponent of Austrian economics.
Read Ludwig Von Mises
Read Adam Smith
Read Ayn Rand
Read Murray Rothbard
and most importantly...
Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by: Edward Griffen
How do governmental anti-trust laws fit into your equation?
-
Do you know what regulation is? It's not bailing compainies out.
No dumbfuck, I don't. ::)
What do you think is going to follow this bailout? Free chocolates? No, MORE REGULATION. Use your fucking head Hugo, I know you can stretch that GED farther than your ultra-liberal mind is letting you. Or does everything need to be spelled out in black and white, Mr. Tinfoil hat?
CNN) -- Two days after the House rejected the $700 billion bailout bill, the Senate is set to vote on the rescue plan for financial institutions.
Rep. Ron Paul said he believes the $700 bailout bill will not solve the financial crisis.
Rep. Ron Paul said he believes the $700 bailout bill will not solve the financial crisis.
The vote is scheduled for after sundown Wednesday.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, and Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, all said they would be present for the vote.
Speaking to CNN's John Roberts on Wednesday, House Financial Services Committee member and former Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul discussed why he thinks the bailout bill is the wrong solution to the economic problem and what he would do to secure financial security.
John Roberts: Congressman, great to see you. I was browsing around on your Web site, Campaign for Liberty. And right there on the very front page, you are appealing to your supporters -- and there are tens of thousands of them -- to get in touch with key senators to tell them to vote this bill down when it comes to a vote in the Senate at sundown tonight.
Why do you want them to vote it down?
Rep. Ron Paul: I think it's a bad bill. I think it's bad for the taxpayers. I think it's doing more of the same thing. The same policy that we're following now with this bill is exactly how we got into that trouble. Video
And you know, I really don't have that much clout in Washington, D.C. And I recognize it. But there are a couple people outside of Washington that care about what I'm thinking and care about free market ... economics. And they will respond. And I think we did help generate a little bit of mail to the House members.
So you go where you can have the influence. And I think that people -- the grassroots -- understand this a lot better than members of Congress give them credit for.
Roberts: So, instead of the bills that are currently before the Senate, the one that may be before the House as early as Thursday, what would you do?
Paul: Well, we need to do a lot, but a lot differently. We have to recognize how we got into this problem. We have too much debt. We have too much malinvestment.
Roberts: OK, OK. So we recognize all of the things that got us here. But, right now, today, what would you do, if not this bill?
Paul: You have to liquidate those mistakes. Those mistakes were made due to monetary policy. So you have to allow the market to adjust prices downward. And that's what we're not allowing to do.
If there are too many houses and the prices are too high, the sooner we get the prices down to the market level, as soon as we quit trying to encourage more housing -- this is what we're doing. They're trying to stimulate houses and keep prices high. It's exactly opposite of what we should do.
So, we should get out of the way and not buy up bad debt. There's illiquid assets, but most of those are probably worthless. They're mostly derivatives. And we're sticking those with the taxpayer. So we have to recognize that the liquidation of debt is crucial. And if we did that, we would have tough times, there's no doubt about it, for a year. But if we keep propping a system up that's not viable, we're going to have a problem for decades, just like we did in the Depression. That's what we're on the verge of doing.
Roberts: Congressman Paul, what do you think of this idea that's being floated -- this process called mark to market, which would, they would modify the rules so that the, right now, paper that a lot of these institutions are holding, which is worth nothing, they would actually be able to assign some sort of value to it.
Some people are saying that that would just hide the problem. Other people are wondering if maybe that might create some sort of voodoo accounting that would allow widespread abuse in the system.
What do you think?
Paul: It demonstrates the problem. You know, when they prevented them from marking them down, this was an SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Shows how regulations backfire.
If you had a market economy and then if you had a market-adjusted FDIC, where insurance was based on the strength of the bank, this would have happened on a daily basis. But instead, we insure everybody, no matter what the bank is doing, and we do it, either we overkill -- we give you too much credit on bad investments -- and then we make changes all of a sudden, and they're drastic, to what they have done.
So, it's impossible. It's either too little or too much. And what you need is insurance of, FDIC type of insurance, has to be driven by the marketplace to measure the viability of a bank.
Roberts: So what do you think?
Paul: This adds to all the moral hazard that we have in the system.
Roberts: So what do you then think of this idea of raising the limit on [FDIC] insurance to $250,000, from its current cap of $100,000?
Paul: Well, on the short run it will calm the markets. People will feel better. I might even personally feel better for a week or two.
But I know that long term, it's the wrong thing to do. I opposed this in the early '80s when they went from 30 [thousand dollars] to 100 [thousand dollars], saying it would lead to more problems like this with malinvestment. It would cover over the mistakes. And the same thing will happen.
But if we raise it to 250 [thousand dollars], people are going to feel better, then it will keep the bubble going for a little while longer and putting more pressure on the dollar. If the dollar lasts longer, then finally the world will give up on the dollar -- and then we will have a big problem that nobody has even really begun to think about.
Roberts: A lot of people might hope that you're wrong with your projection.
Paul: I do too. I hope I'm wrong.
advertisement
Roberts: You tend to be right on these things on occasion, though. Dr. Paul, it's good to talk to you. Appreciate it.
Paul: Thank you.
-
How do governmental anti-trust laws fit into your equation?
Smokescreen. lol.
Anti-trust laws are a big deal when Microsoft tries to buy Yahoo.
How about when JP Morgan swallows up Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch...
How about when the FDIC (again a private banking entity with the power of government behind it) seizes Washington Mutual?
How about when the Federal Reserve dumps 630 billion of new credit into the economy with no oversight from congress?
How about when Government nationalizes Fannie and Freddie by taking equity ownership?
I think you are expecting the Fox to police the hen house...
-
lets keep a distinction here. You can't lump all regulation in the same boat. There is the good, the bad and the ugly. You get rid of the good and I guarantee it aids in monopoly along with a lot of other shit we're seeing the results of now. The system Ron Paul wants might very well work, but it's not where we're at right now, not even close. You indiscriminately support deregulation with these fat cats and everyone else pays the price for their greed. It's like tossing us into a pool of piranha.
See: Robber Barons...
You are not digging deep enough in trying to understand the system. It's like talking about government making sure that all of our apples are red and shiny, ignoring the fact that they all have a worm eating at it from the inside.
As long as the Federal Reserve has a monopoly on what is to pass for legal tender, IT DOES NOT MATTER what our government does via law. It can all be worked around. You cannot have a discussion on sound economics without focusing on the monetary system.
If you listen to Ron, he always talks about SOUND MONEY first.
If you listen to everyone else on the conservative side they talk about "deregulation" there is NO mention about our monetary system.
-
Yeah. I don't think repealing the 16th amendment is a great idea. I also don't care much for consumption taxes as a replacement. Getting rid of the IRS is just plain nonsense.
Would you feel differnently about the Income Tax if you knew that not a dime of goes to programs/infastructure but 100% goes to pay interest on growing debt?
-
You are not digging deep enough in trying to understand the system.
Gee thanks ::) yea, I'm just not applying myself enough in understanding this.................... ..............
-
Gee thanks ::) yea, I'm just not applying myself enough in understanding this.................... ..............
Hugo, do you think could you stop being so sarcastic for a minute in order to "hear" whats being asked or told of/to you?
-
Hugo, do you think could you stop being so sarcastic for a minute in order to "hear" whats being asked or told of/to you?
why, he didn't address what I said in my post. I'm willing to do a two way, but he's the one that said I'm not trying to understand this when I sit here all day long reviewing this stuff. I was simply talking about regulation being bad. I think that's crazy. Not all regulation is bad and I don't care how perfect the rest. You want to deregulate, you want a return to the robber baron era. You cannot have corporate self governance, it's a joke.
-
why, he didn't address what I said in my post. I'm willing to do a two way, but he's the one that said I'm not trying to understand this when I sit here all day long reviewing this stuff. I was simply talking about regulation being bad. I think that's crazy. Not all regulation is bad and I don't care how perfect the rest. You want to deregulate, you want a return to the robber baron era. You cannot have corporate self governance, it's a joke.
He suggested a bunch of books to read. Read em. :)
-
He suggested a bunch of books to read. Read em. :)
Exactly. Until you start going to original sources and creating your own understanding of things, you don't realize how full of shit everyone is, and nearly everything they know came from "hearing it" from someone else.
-
He suggested a bunch of books to read. Read em. :)
and in these books, I'll learn all about how corporations are responsible enough to watch themselves? I haven't read a good sci-fi book lately, maybe I will :D IT'S NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN, IT WON'T EVER HAPPEN, IT'S LIKE THE BUTTHEAD WHO THINKS HE CAN TRUST THE LION NOT TO EAT HIM. lions kill, then sleep, then the next day they look to kill again and sleep... Corporation make money then the next day they do the same thing. Despite their classification as "a person" A corporation is more like a terminator. They don't eat, they don't sleep, they don't reason, they don't do anything like a person. If you don't tell a corporation that they can't do X, they will do it if it makes money. When there are corporations as powerful as today, it's in our absolute best interests to set some regulatory guidelines. If these banking regulations were not lifted over and over in the past 20 or so years, I doubt we would be in this mortgage meltdown. It would have been much harder to create the bubble in the first place.
We're not in the system Ron Paul wants to see and even if we were you'd still end up seeing the necessity for regulations. Yes, I can see where it could become overregulated and that could be bad, but no way these clowns are suffering from over regulation. They've gone through years of deregulation and now here we are... Ron Paul said the opposite, there were to many regulations.
-
By the way, I don't disagree with Ron Paul on very much and this isn't an outright attack on him. He's still cool beans imo, I just didn't agree with this.
-
and in these books, I'll learn all about how corporations are responsible enough to watch themselves? I haven't read a good sci-fi book lately, maybe I will :D IT'S NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN, IT WON'T EVER HAPPEN, IT'S LIKE THE BUTTHEAD WHO THINKS HE CAN TRUST THE LION NOT TO EAT HIM. lions kill, then sleep, then the next day they look to kill again and sleep... Corporation make money then the next day they do the same thing. Despite their classification as "a person" A corporation is more like a terminator. They don't eat, they don't sleep, they don't reason, they don't do anything like a person. If you don't tell a corporation that they can't do X, they will do it if it makes money. When there are corporations as powerful as today, it's in our absolute best interests to set some regulatory guidelines. If these banking regulations were not lifted over and over in the past 20 or so years, I doubt we would be in this mortgage meltdown. It would have been much harder to create the bubble in the first place.
We're not in the system Ron Paul wants to see and even if we were you'd still end up seeing the necessity for regulations. Yes, I can see where it could become overregulated and that could be bad, but no way these clowns are suffering from over regulation. They've gone through years of deregulation and now here we are... Ron Paul said the opposite, there were to many regulations.
Seriously dude, Turn off the TV for a week and sit down and read The Creature From Jekyll Island.
Government and Banks work together. If you honestly think that Government regulations will ever police the Banks and Large corporations for the good of the public, then I might as well piss on your leg and tell you it's raining.
-
Seriously dude, Turn off the TV for a week and sit down and read The Creature From Jekyll Island.
Government and Banks work together. If you honestly think that Government regulations will ever police the Banks and Large corporations for the good of the public, then I might as well piss on your leg and tell you it's raining.
you just identified what I said earlier is a problem. What? you're saying it's bad because it's corrupt, I agree. That doesn't change the fact they need to be regulated. Ron Paul seeks the impossible, what I can't point out what should be?
I've said this before, I'll say it again:
It goes from The Corporation to Government to God to The People, we're last on the totem.
It should go from God to The People to Government to The Corporation.
God included for believers :D
-
ok, I didn't read the book but just read a few lectures and letters. He's saying monopolists like government regulation because it protects them from competition. Points out they did the same thing in Nazi Germany with regulations. But I have to ask, where does this fit with the deregulation they sought? There's a problem here, if they're the guys who put it all in place for their own monopolies, why would they dismantle what "they put there" huh? Could it be? What is the genesis of the regulations that they've lobbied to end over recent years?
oh yea, and if you piss on my leg, I'll kick your ass :D
-
Yesterday:
Ron Paul: Monetary Policy must change, Public: Ron Pauls wrong
Ron Paul: Don't go into Iraq, Public: Ron Pauls wrong
Ron Paul: Housing Bubble will Collapse: Ron Pauls wrong
Ron Paul: Lets look at Fed's books and investigate PPT: Ron Pauls wrong
Today:
Ron Paul's right
Tomarrow:
Ron Paul: less regulation :Hugo Chavez: Ron Pauls wrong
here we go again...... ;D
-
Yesterday:
Ron Paul: Monetary Policy must change, Public: Ron Pauls wrong
Ron Paul: Don't go into Iraq, Public: Ron Pauls wrong
Ron Paul: Housing Bubble will Collapse: Ron Pauls wrong
Ron Paul: Lets look at Fed's books and investigate PPT: Ron Pauls wrong
Today:
Ron Paul's right
Tomarrow:
Ron Paul: less regulation :Hugo Chavez: Ron Pauls wrong
here we go again...... ;D
Bin, I've been saying most of that shit toooooo!!!!!!! Now what ::) Why don't you hook me up and explain the post I just made above.... Don't fucking try and make it look like I'm one of the neotards against Ron Paul ::)
-
look what laxing regulations and deregulating did to the media. The little guys got bought up by the big guys at record pace. No room for the little guy now. Here is a case where it is exactly the opposite of what Griffin, recommended reading here, says regulation does.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html
-
[edit] Energy deregulation
California was the first state to deregulate its energy market. In the mid-90's, under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, California began deregulating the electricity industry. Democratic State Senator Steve Peace, the chair of the energy committee and the author of the bill that caused deregulation, is often credited as "the father of deregulation". Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by "the next governor".
PG&E electric meter on Angel Island.The deregulation called for the Investor Owned Utilities, or IOUs, (primarily Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric) to sell off a significant part of their power generation to wholly private, unregulated companies such as AES, Reliant, and Enron. The buyers of those power plants then became the wholesalers from which the IOUs needed to buy the electricity that they used to own themselves. While the selling of power plants to private companies was labeled "deregulation", in fact Steve Peace and the California legislature expected that there would be regulation by the FERC which would prevent manipulation. The FERC's job, in theory, is to regulate and enforce Federal law, preventing market manipulation and price manipulation of energy markets. When called upon to regulate the out-of-state privateers which were clearly manipulating the California energy market, the FERC hardly reacted at all and did not take serious action against Enron, Reliant, or any other privateers. FERC's resources are in fact quite sparse in comparison to their entrusted task of policing the energy market. Lobbying by private companies may also have slowed down regulation and enforcement.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Energy_deregulation
look what happened when the one thing they needed to be regulated in the midst of the deregulation wasn't... Look what the corporate terminator did once they had regulations where they wanted them via lobbyists. They did what corporations do.
-
ok, I didn't read the book but just read a few lectures and letters. He's saying monopolists like government regulation because it protects them from competition. Points out they did the same thing in Nazi Germany with regulations. But I have to ask, where does this fit with the deregulation they sought? There's a problem here, if they're the guys who put it all in place for their own monopolies, why would they dismantle what "they put there" huh? Could it be? What is the genesis of the regulations that they've lobbied to end over recent years?
oh yea, and if you piss on my leg, I'll kick your ass :D
Ok dude, since you refuse to read I'll take one stab at trying to explain.
The regulations that you think are so important are only smokescreen layed overtop of a foundation of corruption secured by government force.
It's similar to a man with criminal history walking around with a gun, while the government has banned ownership of guns for everyone else.
Now you would be arguing that the government needs to have regulation to keep the man with the gun from doing harm to the American public.
Regulation cannot prevent Artifical Booms coming from malinvestment Caused by fiat currency.
-
Smokescreen. lol.
Anti-trust laws are a big deal when Microsoft tries to buy Yahoo.
How about when JP Morgan swallows up Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch...
How about when the FDIC (again a private banking entity with the power of government behind it) seizes Washington Mutual?
How about when the Federal Reserve dumps 630 billion of new credit into the economy with no oversight from congress?
How about when Government nationalizes Fannie and Freddie by taking equity ownership?
I think you are expecting the Fox to police the hen house...
Anti-trust laws can be enforced rigorously or not. Guess what side of the fence the Bush Administration falls on? I don't like that. How about those other things? The Fed should be reformed b/c it needs it and b/c it caters to the elites. Bankers cannot be trusted. The theory underlying the Fed is sound and should not be done away with...i.e., going back to the gold standard is ridiculous b/c the supply will not match economic performance--mining gold is not a sure thing.
-
Anti-trust laws can be enforced rigorously or not. Guess what side of the fence the Bush Administration falls on? I don't like that. How about those other things? The Fed should be reformed b/c it needs it and b/c it caters to the elites. Bankers cannot be trusted. The theory underlying the Fed is sound and should not be done away with...i.e., going back to the gold standard is ridiculous b/c the supply will not match economic performance--mining gold is not a sure thing.
1. What is the underlying theory of the Fed that you think is sound?
2. In Roman times, one ounce of gold bought a Toga, Belt, and pair of slippers. Today it buys a nice suit, belt, and pair of shoes. Silver buys the same amount of gas in 1960 that it does today. Please explain how precious metals limit economic performance?
3. From 1913 to 1990 the wage of the average American increased 3,234% - an average of 42% per year in terms of dollars. In terms of gold, it only increased 1% per year. Is this 3,157% increase in the fiat money supply the medium you claim is needed to match economic performance?
-
1. What is the underlying theory of the Fed that you think is sound?
2. In Roman times, one ounce of gold bought a Toga, Belt, and pair of slippers. Today it buys a nice suit, belt, and pair of shoes. Silver buys the same amount of gas in 1960 that it does today. Please explain how precious metals limit economic performance?
3. From 1913 to 1990 the wage of the average American increased 3,234% - an average of 42% per year in terms of dollars. In terms of gold, it only increased 1% per year. Is this 3,157% increase in the fiat money supply the medium you claim is needed to match economic performance?
Storm forget it. Decker and Hugo are both intelligent but when you're discussing this type of stuff you are asking people to take everything they have every known to be true and throw it out the window. Asking a person to step outside who they think they are but what was actually enforced upon them is almost impossible to explain or describe in the span of a few sentances. I learned that in another thread with Decker, I would literally have to be on here day in, day out walking through every tiny aspect of what it is you are now trying to explain. You know what kind of rabbit hole it can become. :)
It's simple, they have to first be willing to except something different from what they have known to be true ther whole lives and then they need to take the time and energy to do research of their own.
-
1. What is the underlying theory of the Fed that you think is sound?
2. In Roman times, one ounce of gold bought a Toga, Belt, and pair of slippers. Today it buys a nice suit, belt, and pair of shoes. Silver buys the same amount of gas in 1960 that it does today. Please explain how precious metals limit economic performance?
3. From 1913 to 1990 the wage of the average American increased 3,234% - an average of 42% per year in terms of dollars. In terms of gold, it only increased 1% per year. Is this 3157% increase in the fiat money supply the medium you claim is needed to match economic performance?
I don't care for the pre-scientific economics of the Austrian school of economics.
1. The Fed's control of the money supply influences the business cycle. It tries to maintain a balance in the economy by expanding the money supply enought to avoid high unemployment while not creating inflation. Since this country adopted Keynesian management of the economy via operation of the Fed, this country has not had a depression.
2. The government/fed controls the money supply. That keeps us safe from depressions. When the money supply is determined by an entirely arbitrary standard, like the amount of precious metals we can get out of the ground, the odds that the money supply will match the amount needed are zero. There's no elasticity in that meatball. Hello depression. Goodbye contol of inflation and unemployment.
3. See above.
The elimination of the Fed in favor of reinstating the gold standard is a horrible idea and a bunch of dead teutonic economists is not going to change that.
-
Storm forget it. Decker and Hugo are both intelligent but when you're discussing this type of stuff you are asking people to take everything they have every known to be true and throw it out the window. Asking a person to step outside who they think they are but what was actually enforced upon them is almost impossible to explain or describe in the span of a few sentances. I learned that in another thread with Decker, I would literally have to be on here day in, day out walking through every tiny aspect of what it is you are now trying to explain. You know what kind of rabbit hole it can become. :)
It's simple, they have to first be willing to except something different from what they have known to be true ther whole lives and then they need to take the time and energy to do research of their own.
Ron Paul. I would shine his shoes. ;D
-
Storm forget it. Decker and Hugo are both intelligent but when you're discussing this type of stuff you are asking people to take everything they have every known to be true and throw it out the window. Asking a person to step outside who they think they are but what was actually enforced upon them is almost impossible to explain or describe in the span of a few sentances. I learned that in another thread with Decker, I would literally have to be on here day in, day out walking through every tiny aspect of what it is you are now trying to explain. You know what kind of rabbit hole it can become. :)
It's simple, they have to first be willing to except something different from what they have known to be true ther whole lives and then they need to take the time and energy to do research of their own.
I learned about the federal reserve in college. Now the gold standard, that's a cherished belief. It harkens back to a simpler time. However that time is no longer. And the gold standard should be resigned to the trashbin of history. It served its purpose already.
-
Ok dude, since you refuse to read I'll take one stab at trying to explain.
The regulations that you think are so important are only smokescreen layed overtop of a foundation of corruption secured by government force.
It's similar to a man with criminal history walking around with a gun, while the government has banned ownership of guns for everyone else.
Now you would be arguing that the government needs to have regulation to keep the man with the gun from doing harm to the American public.
Regulation cannot prevent Artifical Booms coming from malinvestment Caused by fiat currency.
Wow, what a fucking asshole... Hey everybody, It's been 1 day and I didn't read his goddamned booklist yet so it's "since I REFUSE to read" ::) Well, gee I didn't have these books but what I did do is go review material he had on it. Indeed in a lecture I found his basic outline of regulations. Man, on this board it's hard as fuck to get anybody to go read anything and I get busted on for staying up last night reading hours of this guys shit. and I'm the stubborn one :D
fuck you dick.
-
Storm forget it. Decker and Hugo are both intelligent but when you're discussing this type of stuff you are asking people to take everything they have every known to be true and throw it out the window. Asking a person to step outside who they think they are but what was actually enforced upon them is almost impossible to explain or describe in the span of a few sentances. I learned that in another thread with Decker, I would literally have to be on here day in, day out walking through every tiny aspect of what it is you are now trying to explain. You know what kind of rabbit hole it can become. :)
It's simple, they have to first be willing to except something different from what they have known to be true ther whole lives and then they need to take the time and energy to do research of their own.
Oh... I took the blue pill huh? I'm Hugo fucking Chavez aka Berserker... Nobody has brought more red pill material to this board than me and you fucking know it. ::) Regulation isn't bad, bad regulation is bad. As I said above, the hierarchy must be changed so that the people tell the government who tells the corporations/banks. Guess what buddy, that's exactly what Griffin says in this video!!! To get what we all want in this area, he requires THE PEOPLE to be the primary mover of these reforms! well gee, it sure sounds like stormshadow just told me that was naive thinking. If I'm naive then so is Griffin!
(and this is a very good documentary, much like the Freedom to Fascism video I was trying to get BB to watch a while back, which got deleted somehow ::) )
http://filmtalks.net/post/2008/04/05/g-edward-griffin-creature-from-jekyll-island-a-second-look-at-the-federal-reserve/#a
Ok, so what happens if the Fed is gone and regulations are done away with leaving it up to the market as supported by the libertarian philosophy. Here's what happens: You know those movies showing a future with One Corporation running everything... Exactly... Here is what they will have to wake up to real fast. Regulations of various industries will be absolutely required, not just to prevent monopoly but every other which way the people will be scammed and they will be manipulated and scammed in ways you never thought of with a free pass. Just letting these guys shoot it out and shit will settle on its own is the most naive thinking.
You accuse me of taking the blue pill, I'm accusing you of idolatry. You seems to have made this into a faith not to have any aspect questioned. And you have Deicide above, he'll shine your God's shoes ::) Question everything, that's taking the red pill buddy.
-
Wow, what a fucking asshole... Hey everybody, It's been 1 day and I didn't read his goddamned booklist yet so it's "since I REFUSE to read" ::) Well, gee I didn't have these books but what I did do is go review material he had on it. Indeed in a lecture I found his basic outline of regulations. Man, on this board it's hard as fuck to get anybody to go read anything and I get busted on for staying up last night reading hours of this guys shit. and I'm the stubborn one :D
fuck you dick.
You - Like most Americans, are not capable of sitting down and reading books.
I wish you luck on your quest to learn from youtube videos.
Griffen's videos are only what he has memorized. The material in his book tells the whole story and gives you facts to go verify for yourself.
If you prefer to make judgments based on what someone can spout off the top of their head, vs what they took years to research and write down, then knock yourself out.
There is a pretty well known guy making youtube videos about the Federal Reserve, and I asked him some questions that rocked his whole understanding, and come to find out he was parroting stuff about the Federal Reserve that he had not really thought out. This man also wrote and ebook and told me he is going to have to go back and rethink it all out.
Wake up! Turn your brain on :)
-
BUMP
-
Thanks, I was looking for this thread a few months ago. I wanted to bump it myself. I still feel the same way. It's one of the things I disagree with Ron Paul on. But that doesn't mean I don't like him. He's hands down the best guy for the job. I don't have to like everything he stands for.
I do not believe regulations are bad just automatically. Bad regulations are bad. Because there are bad regulations, doesn't mean you should just be for doing away with all regulation. It means you have to do away with bad regulations and make sure others are there for a good reason with positive benifit.
-
Just heard him on CNN say part of the problem is we overregulate... I must have missed this before because I would have called BS on that sooner. The last thing we need is to hand these banks and corporations more free passes under the retarded notion that they'll responsibly self govern ::) Trusting these guys to watch themselves is exactly why we're in this problem. Did he misspeak or is this his actual thinking?
I disagree with Ron Paul on this too, or I don't understand what he means. The derivatives market needs to be regulated more. Not regulating derivatives has very much to do with the current status of the global economy.
"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
-
I disagree with Ron Paul on this too, or I don't understand what he means. The derivatives market needs to be regulated more. Not regulating derivatives has very much to do with the current status of the global economy.
"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
I think Glass Steagal should be reinstated but even then, I don't know if it would be enough. If RP could speak more of this I would love to listen.
-
I think Glass Steagal should be reinstated but even then, I don't know if it would be enough. If RP could speak more of this I would love to listen.
I would also like to hear more on this in general from Ron Paul. It's one of those questions I don't hear him get asked. He comments on it here and there. Regardless, if this is my major problem with Paul, I'm good with that. From what I get, he's against all regulation.
There needs to be serious regulation reform across the board so that innovation and small business is not stopped or hurt imo. There's a lot of people that flat out believe that means just get rid of it all, but that's naive. Business will be happy to do the most unscrupulous shit if you let them and they don't care how many get fucked along the way or down the road.
-
I would also like to hear more on this in general from Ron Paul. It's one of those questions I don't hear him get asked. He comments on it here and there. Regardless, if this is my major problem with Paul, I'm good with that. From what I get, he's against all regulation.
There needs to be serious regulation reform across the board so that innovation and small business is not stopped or hurt imo. There's a lot of people that flat out believe that means just get rid of it all, but that's naive. Business will be happy to do the most unscrupulous shit if you let them and they don't care how many get fucked along the way or down the road.
I found this. He talks about it at 2:50. This is over a year old.
-
I would also like to hear more on this in general from Ron Paul. It's one of those questions I don't hear him get asked. He comments on it here and there. Regardless, if this is my major problem with Paul, I'm good with that. From what I get, he's against all regulation.
There needs to be serious regulation reform across the board so that innovation and small business is not stopped or hurt imo. There's a lot of people that flat out believe that means just get rid of it all, but that's naive. Business will be happy to do the most unscrupulous shit if you let them and they don't care how many get fucked along the way or down the road.
I also thought this was interesting from Peter Schiff:
-
I found this. He talks about it at 2:50. This is over a year old.
yea, that is a little naive imo. I get what he's saying and in theory it's the right notion but it doesn't and won't work out that way. These bankers don't give a flying rats ass about what they'll be held accountable to by the free market. They'll go balls to the wall in the moment. If one banks starts doing it, then another, the rest sure in the hell won't worry about future consequences, they'll jump on it too. When the game is this big, I have no problems with a few good guidlines in place that ensure the players don't bring us all down.
-
yea, that is a little naive imo. I get what he's saying and in theory it's the right notion but it doesn't and won't work out that way. These bankers don't give a flying rats ass about what they'll be held accountable to by the free market. They'll go balls to the wall in the moment. If one banks starts doing it, then another, the rest sure in the hell won't worry about future consequences, they'll jump on it too. When the game is this big, I have no problems with a few good guidlines in place that ensure the players don't bring us all down.
Well, as you said, you can't agree with RP on everything; I think there are one or two things I don't agree about either but they are not on the top of the list and overall he would do much good for the country, more good than ill in any event.
-
Well, as you said, you can't agree with RP on everything; I think there are one or two things I don't agree about either but they are not on the top of the list and overall he would do much good for the country, more good than ill in any event.
How, when he won`t have a supportive Congress, especially if he Vetoes everything like he claims he would do?
-
Well, as you said, you can't agree with RP on everything; I think there are one or two things I don't agree about either but they are not on the top of the list and overall he would do much good for the country, more good than ill in any event.
yea, it's not a big deal. At the time I made this thread, I acutally thought it was odd that I had a major thing I didn't agree with so I posted it. If 3333 wants to bump everything else I said about ron paul from the same time and ealier, he's going to find I like almost everything else about Paul.
-
How, when he won`t have a supportive Congress, especially if he Vetoes everything like he claims he would do?
where did Paul say he would veto everything? You still have not got back to me on that other claim you made either.
-
yea, it's not a big deal. At the time I made this thread, I acutally thought it was odd that I had a major thing I didn't agree with so I posted it. If 3333 wants to bump everything else I said about ron paul from the same time and ealier, he's going to find I like almost everything else about Paul.
Don't worry Bro - Palin looks like she is running and when she wins you can bump my Palin threads.
-
you can bump my Palin threads.
why?
-
where did Paul say he would veto everything? You still have not got back to me on that other claim you made either.
Isn`t his name Dr. No? Based on his Congressional record, I`d say its a safe bet he would act the same.
Also, I was unable to find the Youtube video where he talked about the Post Office. If I come across it, I will surely post it. I would like to know if he supports closing it down, (which he can`t due to the Constitution) and letting the Private Sector high-jack our mail system.
-
3333, are you going on another bump rampage? Is there a point? You're what, trying to show I voted for Obama like everyone already doesn't know that? I'm glad you bumped this as I wanted to bump it at some point anyway. But what's your point on the other bumps? Everyone already knows this shit. I have not tried to hide it lol...
-
3333, are you going on another bump rampage? Is there a point? You're what, trying to show I voted for Obama like everyone already doesn't know that? I'm glad you bumped this as I wanted to bump it at some point anyway. But what's your point on the other bumps? Everyone already knows this shit. I have not tried to hide it lol...
I was trying to find your yippikaiiiiiiii thread and found a few gems in the process.
-
Isn`t his name Dr. No? Based on his Congressional record, I`d say its a safe bet he would act the same.
Also, I was unable to find the Youtube video where he talked about the Post Office. If I come across it, I will surely post it. I would like to know if he supports closing it down, (which he can`t due to the Constitution) and letting the Private Sector high-jack our mail system.
You were unable to find the video of him saying he would abolish the USPS because it does not excist. That's not what he said about the USPS. He's said plenty on it and it's nothing about abolishing it. So you made a false statement to me about that, end of story.
And you just made another false statement by saying Paul said he would just veto everything. He never said that. Don't say he said shit he never said. If you speculate he would do something, then state it that way.
-
I was trying to find your yippikaiiiiiiii thread and found a few gems in the process.
I think I locked that thread after the 5th or so time you bumped it with a dozen others in one of your many bump rampages. Still don't know what your point is. Everyone knows I voted for Obama and everyone knows I was happy AT THAT TIME to keep Bush and the neocon agenda from a third term.
At one point I even offered to sticky that fucking thread for you if you stopped going on mass bump campaigns.
-
I think I locked that thread after the 5th or so time you bumped it with a dozen others in one of your many bump rampages. Still don't know what your point is. Everyone knows I voted for Obama and everyone knows I was happy AT THAT TIME to keep Bush and the neocon agenda from a third term.
At one point I even offered to sticky that fucking thread for you if you stopped going on mass bump campaigns.
LMFAO. Sand in your twat again?
-
LMFAO. Sand in your twat again?
::) You're the one melting down over the fact that I voted for Obama and still would over McCain. You're the one that's gone on a dozen or more bump rampages over it. You're clearly the one with sand in your clit over it. I'm just asking what your point is? You feel you have to make it every few months so you're clearly very upset over it.
-
::) You're the one melting down over the fact that I voted for Obama and still would over McCain. You're the one that's gone on a dozen or more bump rampages over it. You're clearly the one with sand in your clit over it. I'm just asking what your point is? You feel you have to make it every few months so you're clearly very upset over it.
You would vote for Obama again?
OMG. ha ha ha - you are so far gone its not funny.
-
You were unable to find the video of him saying he would abolish the USPS because it does not excist. That's not what he said about the USPS. He's said plenty on it and it's nothing about abolishing it. So you made a false statement to me about that, end of story.
And you just made another false statement by saying Paul said he would just veto everything. He never said that. Don't say he said shit he never said. If you speculate he would do something, then state it that way.
Please post what he says about the Post Office. Where is all of this "plentiful" information you speak of? ???
I am judging by his Congressional Record and by the fact that he lives up to the name, Dr. No.
So how about that Post Office information. I`d love to see what he says on it. The only video I remember was from C-Span 4 years ago and I cannot find it. Where is your information?
-
You would vote for Obama again?
OMG. ha ha ha - you are so far gone its not funny.
Yea, I would vote for Obama again. That is to say if I went back in time and had the vote to do over, I would still not vote for McCain. I also do this with the same knowledge that my vote didn't matter. I didn't help Obama get elected with my vote. I knew that the first time and nothing would change if I could go back and do it again. You seem to keep forgetting that I voted in Wyoming and knew before that vote that the state would go to McCain in a landslide. Mickey Mouse probably got more votes in Wyoming than Obama did lol...
Today, I don't think Obama is a good president. But funny as you may find it, I don't think McSame would have been any different. Sure on some things he would have but I'm sure he would have made up for it in other areas of bad.
I seriously believe today the only way you're going to see any positive real difference in a good way is to vote for Ron Paul.
-
what's ron paul's stance of punching hookers in the mouth with a roll of quarters?
pro- or anti- ?
-
Yea, I would vote for Obama again. That is to say if I went back in time and had the vote to do over, I would still not vote for McCain. I also do this with the same knowledge that my vote didn't matter. I didn't help Obama get elected with my vote. I knew that the first time and nothing would change if I could go back and do it again. You seem to keep forgetting that I voted in Wyoming and knew before that vote that the state would go to McCain in a landslide. Mickey Mouse probably got more votes in Wyoming than Obama did lol...
Today, I don't think Obama is a good president. But funny as you may find it, I don't think McSame would have been any different. Sure on some things he would have but I'm sure he would have made up for it in other areas of bad.
I seriously believe today the only way you're going to see any positive real difference in a good way is to vote for Ron Paul.
I still don`t see how as not many in Congress are on the same page as Paul. How will he dictate his agenda if nobody hardly supports him in Congress right now?
-
I still don`t see how as not many in Congress are on the same page as Paul. How will he dictate his agenda if nobody hardly supports him in Congress right now?
He does need the help of Congress to get his agenda through, but he only needs the veto pen to stop legislation he disagrees with.
-
Please post what he says about the Post Office. Where is all of this "plentiful" information you speak of? ???
I am judging by his Congressional Record and by the fact that he lives up to the name, Dr. No.
So how about that Post Office information. I`d love to see what he says on it. The only video I remember was from C-Span 4 years ago and I cannot find it. Where is your information?
I'll look for it again, but he thinks the USPS is a monopoly. He says of monopolies, "I would not outlaw them if the free market were allowed to operate" I think that means he would want open competition for the post office. Nowhere has he said anything about outright abolishing the USPS. As strickly as he follows the constitution, it would be hypocritical of him to say Congress does not have the rights in this area granted to it. There's another video where he is critical of tactics used by the post office to keep their monopoly. Nowhere in that talk did he talk about abolishing the USPS.
And if you're going to make statements on your judgement, word it like that, don't say that's what he said.
-
He does need the help of Congress to get his agenda through, but he only needs the veto pen to stop legislation he disagrees with.
If he can`t muster up any real Congressional Support from either side, than his Presidency would become a giant disaster.
-
If he can`t muster up any real Congressional Support from either side, than his Presidency would become a giant disaster.
No it wouldn't. Stopping bad legislation can be just as beneficial as passing good legislation.
-
No it wouldn't. Stopping bad legislation can be just as beneficial as passing good legislation.
Let`s listen to the person, John Chambers of the S&P who made the final call to downgrade the Credit and what caused it and WHY he made that call. With Ron Paul and his inability to muster up any support and heavy handed rubber stamp of NO, we are surely headed for disastrous consequences.
-
I would also like to hear more on this in general from Ron Paul. It's one of those questions I don't hear him get asked. He comments on it here and there. Regardless, if this is my major problem with Paul, I'm good with that. From what I get, he's against all regulation.
There needs to be serious regulation reform across the board so that innovation and small business is not stopped or hurt imo. There's a lot of people that flat out believe that means just get rid of it all, but that's naive. Business will be happy to do the most unscrupulous shit if you let them and they don't care how many get fucked along the way or down the road.
I'd wager Paul looks at it as if you cut off the free money the FED gifts these banks then there would be no need for regulation. Without the free cash guarantee and the end to bailouts of insolvent firms (i.e. the possibility of a bank failure becomes a real possibility), banks will deleverage themselves from these ridiculous ratios and police themselves. The banks that want to run high-risk trading schemes (which brings the increased risk of failure) can run them to their heart’s content. They just won’t be bailed out after their schemes come down on their heads. High-risk, high-reward, bitchez.
That’s my only gripe with the HFTs. Every time there is a flash crash the NYSE or whoever steps in and cancels all the trades run by the algo, thus removing any risk from them fucking up their programs. If they were forced to take the losses the flash crash brought then they would be forced to up their game on their bots.
-
I'd wager Paul looks at it as if you cut off the free money the FED gifts these banks then there would be no need for regulation. Without the free cash guarantee and the end to bailouts of insolvent firms (i.e. the possibility of a bank failure becomes a real possibility), banks will deleverage themselves from these ridiculous ratios and police themselves. The banks that want to run high-risk trading schemes (which brings the increased risk of failure) can run them to their heart’s content. They just won’t be bailed out after their schemes come down on their heads. High-risk, high-reward, bitchez.
That’s my only gripe with the HFTs. Every time there is a flash crash the NYSE or whoever steps in and cancels all the trades run by the algo, thus removing any risk from them fucking up their programs. If they were forced to take the losses the flash crash brought then they would be forced to up their game on their bots.
I do think that's the way he sees it. But would that be the reality of it? It's that part that I'm not sure about. They do have a pretty big card to play with their, "give us the money or it's the end of everything you know" card. Where the right regulations might prevent them from creating a shitstorm like this in the first place.
-
I do think that's the way he sees it. But would that be the reality of it? It's that part that I'm not sure about. They do have a pretty big card to play with their, "give us the money or it's the end of everything you know" card. Where the right regulations might prevent them from creating a shitstorm like this in the first place.
The big question is if it would ever get that far, I mean, to even see if it would function that way. The system is so entrenched and it just seems like the Fed and Family get to do whatever they want. Assuming RP doesn't win the Presidency, what could possibly stop the next bailout if and when the economy crashes? :-\
-
I'd wager Paul looks at it as if you cut off the free money the FED gifts these banks then there would be no need for regulation. Without the free cash guarantee and the end to bailouts of insolvent firms (i.e. the possibility of a bank failure becomes a real possibility), banks will deleverage themselves from these ridiculous ratios and police themselves. The banks that want to run high-risk trading schemes (which brings the increased risk of failure) can run them to their heart’s content. They just won’t be bailed out after their schemes come down on their heads. High-risk, high-reward, bitchez.
That’s my only gripe with the HFTs. Every time there is a flash crash the NYSE or whoever steps in and cancels all the trades run by the algo, thus removing any risk from them fucking up their programs. If they were forced to take the losses the flash crash brought then they would be forced to up their game on their bots.
Awesome post. What the hell happened? We used to disagree all the time. Lol but seriously you are very close to the truth of the matter.
-
The big question is if it would ever get that far, I mean, to even see if it would function that way. The system is so entrenched and it just seems like the Fed and Family get to do whatever they want. Assuming RP doesn't win the Presidency, what could possibly stop the next bailout if and when the economy crashes? :-\
good question. maybe it's just hard to see it without regs because of that.
-
good question. maybe it's just hard to see it without regs because of that.
I think they're will be another crash and they will want another bailout...unless they are threatened with violence or something, what will stop them from getting it?
-
you need regulation the question is HOW.
this part scares me about RP. then again I know its a farce. yes iv been drinking :D
-
you need regulation the question is HOW.
this part scares me about RP. then again I know its a farce. yes iv been drinking :D
I do think the right regulation is important... Problem is, I don't have any faith that the assclowns elected can get the "right regulation" done.
-
I agree, it like the myth of government incompetency. its competent enough to make us think its incompetent.
-
you need regulation the question is HOW.
this part scares me about RP. then again I know its a farce. yes iv been drinking :D
Paul is for regulation that doesn't allow individuals or entities (corporations) to impose on others rights. If elected he wouldn't go in and start stripping away legislation that would let companies do whatever the fuck they wanted. I wouldn't be surprised if he would push for things like Glass-Steagal to be re-instituted. When he talks about over regulation people take that to the extreme and say he just wants to remove all regulation which is far from the truth.
It's crystal clear that there are WAY too many regulations in our country. Why do you think health care has sky rocketed? Do you realize it costs over $300 for a nurse to admister fucking Tylenol to a patient in a hospital? Fucking retarded. It's not just health care but everything that affects our daily lives that has been regulated to the extreme. The government has regulated us into not having to take personal responsibility and make choices for ourselves because they are chosing for us.
-
Paul is for regulation that doesn't allow individuals or entities (corporations) to impose on others rights. If elected he wouldn't go in and start stripping away legislation that would let companies do whatever the fuck they wanted. I wouldn't be surprised if he would push for things like Glass-Steagal to be re-instituted. When he talks about over regulation people take that to the extreme and say he just wants to remove all regulation which is far from the truth.
It's crystal clear that there are WAY too many regulations in our country. Why do you think health care has sky rocketed? Do you realize it costs over $300 for a nurse to admister fucking Tylenol to a patient in a hospital? Fucking retarded. It's not just health care but everything that affects our daily lives that has been regulated to the extreme. The government has regulated us into not having to take personal responsibility and make choices for ourselves because they are chosing for us.
There are so many clips where he just talks about doing away with regulation. some that follow him have for sure spoken like all regulation is bad. He really need to talk about this a bit more.
-
There are so many clips where he just talks about doing away with regulation. some that follow him have for sure spoken like all regulation is bad. He really need to talk about this a bit more.
Could you post a clip where he mentions unregulating everything. I think Emmortal is closer to the actual words he uses.
-
REP. RON PAUL: Well, because I talk about a lot less regulation – I don’t like the regulatory agencies, but that doesn’t mean the free market doesn’t have regulation. The regulations in the free market are much stricter because if a company gets into trouble and goes bankrupt, the law – the economic law, which should be enforced by government, that company goes bankrupt. So instead of bailing them out, these companies should have gone bankrupt.
But you have sound money and free markets; you can’t counterfeit money, like the Federal Reserve does.
-
Could you post a clip where he mentions unregulating everything. I think Emmortal is closer to the actual words he uses.
that's what I'm wondering about now, if he wasn't talking about that. Remember, this thread was just bumped by 3333. It's been a while since I was looking at this aspect. I do remember the general context of his interviews soundling like he was just against regulation period when I created this thread. And indeed others who are for Ron Paul have spoken the same way as if all regulation is taboo. That's why I do think he needs to expand a bit more on the issue. Is he flat out againt regulation or is he actually thinking the same as I about regulation? I'm not sure at this point?
I never really meant this to be an attack thread on Ron Paul. At the time my thinking was, "holy shit, I found something I don't agree with" kinda thing.
-
that's what I'm wondering about now, if he wasn't talking about that. Remember, this thread was just bumped by 3333. It's been a while since I was looking at this aspect. I do remember the general context of his interviews soundling like he was just against regulation period when I created this thread. And indeed others who are for Ron Paul have spoken the same way as if all regulation is taboo. That's why I do think he needs to expand a bit more on the issue. Is he flat out againt regulation or is he actually thinking the same as I about regulation? I'm not sure at this point?
I never really meant this to be an attack thread on Ron Paul. At the time my thinking was, "holy shit, I found something I don't agree with" kinda thing.
Everyone should always question why they agree or disagree with someone. It's a difficult thing to do with so much political posturing and people saying one thing and doing another these days. It's extremely important you base your opinoins on the facts and not just something someone told you who missinterpreted from someone else who read an article written by someone with an agenda.
While we have access to much more information these days, we have a plethora of missinformation to deal with as well which makes it more difficult to make wise decisions. This has been recognized by people who are pushing their ideas and viewpoints on others because they know that 90% of the people who receive the information their giving won't do any fact checking on it and take it for face value.
I have friends older than myself who send me e-mails all the time about some wild one sided opinionated subjects which I go through about 10 minutes of research to find out is completely blown out of proportion or outright patently false. Not to get too far off on a tangent, but I blame technology on this, or our lack of ability to digest the loads of information given to us at instant speeds through technology. I see it a lot in Gen Y as well. Just observing my young nephew play video games, he's a bright kid but he has almost zero attention span and problem solving skills, spends a good 70% of his day texting on his phone or surfing the net on it barely noticing the world around him. It really makes me wonder about how things are going to turn out in the future.
-
India is most over-regulated country in the world
India is most over-regulated country in the world: Survey - The Economic Times
India has topped a list of the most "over-regulated countries in the world" in a survey on Asian business and politics by Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd (PERC).
The survey used responses from American executives about regulatory conditions in the United States to provide a benchmark against which to assess the Asian scores.
India was rated worst in terms of over-regulation, scoring 9.16 points out of 10, followed by China with 9.04 points, Japan in third position with 3.28 points and the US at fourth with 1.51 points.
Hong Kong received the best score in the survey of 0.98 point, while Singapore was second with 1.08 points, according to the survey done in the last quarter of 2010, based on responses from 1,370 executives.
In general, regulations were complex and non-transparent, while standards and certifications procedures were onerous in India, according to the PERC survey findings.
Foreign exchange, capital transactions and some credit operations were subject to approvals, restrictions and additional requirements that went far beyond what most other countries require, concluded the survey.
Even procedures for something as simple as getting a tourist visa were more cumbersome in India than was typical elsewhere, it pointed out.
It also cited specific examples from the World Bank's Doing Business Survey of why India's regulatory system deserves to be graded as poorly as it was. It can take a month-and-a-half to register property, almost 200 days to obtain a construction permit, over 1,400 days to enforce a contract and seven years to close a business.
"Documentation requirements for both exports and imports are onerous," the PERC survey pointed out.
"Labor requirements are strict and companies lack flexibility on hiring and firing workers," it concluded.
Regulations in the country were frequently not enforced, which raised the question of why they were on the books at all, noted the survey.
"In a recent scandal involving the telecommunications ministry's mishandling of a landmark allocation of mobile telephone spectrum, as many as 85 of 122 new licences which were bundled with the bandwidth allocation were issued to companies that did not have the required capital to seek bandwidth," the survey pointed out.
These companies "suppressed facts, disclosed incomplete information and submitted fictitious documents", according to the survey.
"Of course they could not have done so without the complicity of bureaucrats at the ministry, who overlooked qualification shortcomings and arbitrarily moved forward the cut-off date for applying by one week to favor some companies that had applied earlier, while leaving others out," it said.
So much for all those regulations.
-
I agree, it like the myth of government incompetency. its competent enough to make us think its incompetent.
the smartest thing the devil ever did was convince people he didn't exist...
-
that's what I'm wondering about now, if he wasn't talking about that. Remember, this thread was just bumped by 3333. It's been a while since I was looking at this aspect. I do remember the general context of his interviews soundling like he was just against regulation period when I created this thread. And indeed others who are for Ron Paul have spoken the same way as if all regulation is taboo. That's why I do think he needs to expand a bit more on the issue. Is he flat out againt regulation or is he actually thinking the same as I about regulation? I'm not sure at this point?
I never really meant this to be an attack thread on Ron Paul. At the time my thinking was, "holy shit, I found something I don't agree with" kinda thing.
Didn't look at it as an attack. Its a great topic of discussion and something he does need to be more clear on.