- This topic has 137 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
latesummer2008.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 22, 2007 at 6:55 PM #54428May 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM #54427
luchabee
ParticipantYou seem to be contradicting the point of the doctor and making my point. It was actually government intervention by artificially depressing interest rates that has led to this min-disaster!
Also, people, naturally, sought to take advantage of this government intervention made millions. Even the relatively uneducated in real estate made hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. This was not a bad result. Will people late to the party get hurt? Yes. Will people who have no understanding of basic finance get hurt and who took out loans that were too big? Yes (not really that much, though, cause they will get free rent after the NODs. The people who actually will get hurt the most will be affluent investors who made the loans posssible.
Would this have been avoided by making loan applicants read scores of pages of disclosures about not taking out too big a loan? No. They didn’t even read the fine print to begin with, so why would they read additional disclosures?
Maybe, after artificially depressing interest rates, the government should have limited loan sizes? Why not do this in the stock market, too, when artificially low interest rates cause the market to heat up?
So, thank you for agreeing with me. Also, I’ll pass on smelling the coffee. I prefer tea.
May 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM #54440ParticipantYou seem to be contradicting the point of the doctor and making my point. It was actually government intervention by artificially depressing interest rates that has led to this min-disaster!
Also, people, naturally, sought to take advantage of this government intervention made millions. Even the relatively uneducated in real estate made hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. This was not a bad result. Will people late to the party get hurt? Yes. Will people who have no understanding of basic finance get hurt and who took out loans that were too big? Yes (not really that much, though, cause they will get free rent after the NODs. The people who actually will get hurt the most will be affluent investors who made the loans posssible.
Would this have been avoided by making loan applicants read scores of pages of disclosures about not taking out too big a loan? No. They didn’t even read the fine print to begin with, so why would they read additional disclosures?
Maybe, after artificially depressing interest rates, the government should have limited loan sizes? Why not do this in the stock market, too, when artificially low interest rates cause the market to heat up?
So, thank you for agreeing with me. Also, I’ll pass on smelling the coffee. I prefer tea.
May 22, 2007 at 8:23 PM #54429drunkle
Participant
So, I’ll pass on the hyper-regulation card. Despite its occasional mini-disasters, deregulation and competition has been an essential force in improving the American-way-of-life. Sure, have the government use its muscle if need be (with prosecution and civil enforcement), but don’t hamper our economy with needless regulation and causing millions of jobs to melt away to more stream-lined economies in Asia.
so you agree: regulations are necessary. because… no one is calling for “needless” regulation.
edit: “regulations” for us peons is called The Law. laws that pertain to business are called “regulations” in order to give negative connotations. ie., businesses having to abide regulations are being hampered whereas businesses having to abide by the law are not.
May 22, 2007 at 8:23 PM #54442Participant
So, I’ll pass on the hyper-regulation card. Despite its occasional mini-disasters, deregulation and competition has been an essential force in improving the American-way-of-life. Sure, have the government use its muscle if need be (with prosecution and civil enforcement), but don’t hamper our economy with needless regulation and causing millions of jobs to melt away to more stream-lined economies in Asia.
so you agree: regulations are necessary. because… no one is calling for “needless” regulation.
edit: “regulations” for us peons is called The Law. laws that pertain to business are called “regulations” in order to give negative connotations. ie., businesses having to abide regulations are being hampered whereas businesses having to abide by the law are not.
May 22, 2007 at 8:28 PM #54433ParticipantYou seem to be contradicting the point of the doctor and making my point. It was actually government intervention by artificially depressing interest rates that has led to this min-disaster!
no one is regulating/overseeing the fed. the fed is not the government although they may have influence with and may be influenced by. they are a supreme agency in this country.
you accept that the fed’s actions have a part in the housing bubble. you believe that the bubble is bad. knowing now that the fed are not regulated and that their unregulated actions have had dire consequences, you must accept that regulation is necessary.
May 22, 2007 at 8:28 PM #54446ParticipantYou seem to be contradicting the point of the doctor and making my point. It was actually government intervention by artificially depressing interest rates that has led to this min-disaster!
no one is regulating/overseeing the fed. the fed is not the government although they may have influence with and may be influenced by. they are a supreme agency in this country.
you accept that the fed’s actions have a part in the housing bubble. you believe that the bubble is bad. knowing now that the fed are not regulated and that their unregulated actions have had dire consequences, you must accept that regulation is necessary.
May 22, 2007 at 9:12 PM #54435ParticipantSorry, but I would definitely call much of Sarbox needless regulation.
This regulation has led to litterally billions of dollars leaving the US and thousands of jobs. It might be good for auditors, but it is not an efficient use of capital for creating jobs that matter and jobs that will increase economic activity for everyone.
How many tremendous companies won’t be doing IPO’s in the U.S.and instead in Hong Kong or Japan? How many companies will stay private, so as to not have to comply with Sarbox? (Actually, this regulation might make things worse since there will be more private firms and more offshore companies.)
How much of a net-job loss will this be for the US because this needless regulation? Try thousands.
Instead of regulating these companies wouldn’t it be better to preach the virtues of appropriate asset allocation and due dilligence so that investors can protect themselves from these malicious acts?
Instead of spending billions to regulate and losing billions in return because of our inability to compete with other economies, why not realize that some people will make stupid mistakes and speculate by putting all their eggs in one basket? Perhaps we can help them if they are hurt from an unforseen event or act, but why sacrifice literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to prevent this? As to punishing those that commit fraud, we have plenty of state and federal laws to deter most people. Some will get around the laws, but that is life.
May 22, 2007 at 9:12 PM #54448ParticipantSorry, but I would definitely call much of Sarbox needless regulation.
This regulation has led to litterally billions of dollars leaving the US and thousands of jobs. It might be good for auditors, but it is not an efficient use of capital for creating jobs that matter and jobs that will increase economic activity for everyone.
How many tremendous companies won’t be doing IPO’s in the U.S.and instead in Hong Kong or Japan? How many companies will stay private, so as to not have to comply with Sarbox? (Actually, this regulation might make things worse since there will be more private firms and more offshore companies.)
How much of a net-job loss will this be for the US because this needless regulation? Try thousands.
Instead of regulating these companies wouldn’t it be better to preach the virtues of appropriate asset allocation and due dilligence so that investors can protect themselves from these malicious acts?
Instead of spending billions to regulate and losing billions in return because of our inability to compete with other economies, why not realize that some people will make stupid mistakes and speculate by putting all their eggs in one basket? Perhaps we can help them if they are hurt from an unforseen event or act, but why sacrifice literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to prevent this? As to punishing those that commit fraud, we have plenty of state and federal laws to deter most people. Some will get around the laws, but that is life.
May 23, 2007 at 4:57 PM #54576Participantis sarbox limbaugh’s latest talking point?
the move overseas has been occuring since before regulation of *accounting practices*. before, it was environmental regulations, minimum wages, employee rights, etc etc. perhaps you’d rather work 16 hour days for peanuts eating tainted sausage and living in a rat infested company apartment?
this is the second time you’ve used a result of deregulation as a reason for even less regulation; companies are free to move overseas due to the lack of trade restrictions.
how do investors protect themselves from co’s who lie? who cook the books? what about fund managers who make investments for you? do you do all your own homework on companies in which your 401k or pension is invested?
i bet you’d love the privatization of social security too. to give people the “ability” to invest their social security in the stock market. while at the same time removing regulations on accounting, marketing, whatever. boo hoo if people “chose” poorly, out on the street they go. no matter if snake oil corporation lied up and down about who they are, what they do and how much they make. too f’ing bad, eh?
May 23, 2007 at 4:57 PM #54590Participantis sarbox limbaugh’s latest talking point?
the move overseas has been occuring since before regulation of *accounting practices*. before, it was environmental regulations, minimum wages, employee rights, etc etc. perhaps you’d rather work 16 hour days for peanuts eating tainted sausage and living in a rat infested company apartment?
this is the second time you’ve used a result of deregulation as a reason for even less regulation; companies are free to move overseas due to the lack of trade restrictions.
how do investors protect themselves from co’s who lie? who cook the books? what about fund managers who make investments for you? do you do all your own homework on companies in which your 401k or pension is invested?
i bet you’d love the privatization of social security too. to give people the “ability” to invest their social security in the stock market. while at the same time removing regulations on accounting, marketing, whatever. boo hoo if people “chose” poorly, out on the street they go. no matter if snake oil corporation lied up and down about who they are, what they do and how much they make. too f’ing bad, eh?
May 23, 2007 at 7:14 PM #545944runner
Participant- Instead of spending billions to regulate and losing billions in return because of our inability to compete with other economies, why not realize that some people will make stupid mistakes and speculate by putting all their eggs in one basket? Perhaps we can help them if they are hurt from an unforseen event or act, but why sacrifice literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to prevent this? As to punishing those that commit fraud, we have plenty of state and federal laws to deter most people. Some will get around the laws, but that is life.
At some point, it is actually more efficient for the gov’t to step in and forbid certain behavior. For example, the government does not allow people to buy addictive recreational drugs because too many people will make stupid mistakes and society at large will have to pay for those mistakes.
As another example, the government does not allow people to build unsafe bridges/highways/roads. By your logic, if the people who used those bridges/highways/roads did proper “due diligence,” there would be no need for government intervention!!! People would simply figure out which bridges/highways/roads were the safest, and only use those!!!
Much of Sarbox is an attempt to increase the number of things that the CEO and Board have to say about a company. It makes due diligence easier. If those statements are false and/or misleading, the CEO and Board can be punished using the existing state and federal laws that you hold so dear.
Before Sarbox, the CEO and Board could simply refrain from saying those things and not commit fraud by virtue of their silence… Investors were stuck reading through the voluminous footnotes, and we all know how successful most investors were in discovering the Enron and its ilk.
May 23, 2007 at 7:14 PM #54609Participant- Instead of spending billions to regulate and losing billions in return because of our inability to compete with other economies, why not realize that some people will make stupid mistakes and speculate by putting all their eggs in one basket? Perhaps we can help them if they are hurt from an unforseen event or act, but why sacrifice literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to prevent this? As to punishing those that commit fraud, we have plenty of state and federal laws to deter most people. Some will get around the laws, but that is life.
At some point, it is actually more efficient for the gov’t to step in and forbid certain behavior. For example, the government does not allow people to buy addictive recreational drugs because too many people will make stupid mistakes and society at large will have to pay for those mistakes.
As another example, the government does not allow people to build unsafe bridges/highways/roads. By your logic, if the people who used those bridges/highways/roads did proper “due diligence,” there would be no need for government intervention!!! People would simply figure out which bridges/highways/roads were the safest, and only use those!!!
Much of Sarbox is an attempt to increase the number of things that the CEO and Board have to say about a company. It makes due diligence easier. If those statements are false and/or misleading, the CEO and Board can be punished using the existing state and federal laws that you hold so dear.
Before Sarbox, the CEO and Board could simply refrain from saying those things and not commit fraud by virtue of their silence… Investors were stuck reading through the voluminous footnotes, and we all know how successful most investors were in discovering the Enron and its ilk.
May 23, 2007 at 11:12 PM #54633ParticipantMuch of these discussions turn on the degree to which regulation should be used. These public policy decision are case-specific. I’m not advocating total deregulation, but this experiment has worked well in the airline industry and in telecomunications (at least from a consumer perspective). Most every other sector is deregulated.
Globally, deregulation is the new paradigm, save Venzeuela. We can copy Hugo if you would like.
As to due dilligence, you are right this is less a protective tool if someone wants to circumvent securities laws with misrepresentation, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. (Before Sarbox, however, these laws were already on the books at the state and federal level (12 b 6, etc.) This was not the main effect of Sarbox; it was the burdensome reporting requirements.)
Due dilligence was only a partial recommendation, however. The primary protection is proper asset allocation. All of these problems would be avoided if common people stopped trying to make tremendous gains on specific companies. Why create billions in new goverment, hamper these industries, drive jobs overseas, etc. when you could warn investors to stop being so stupid and placing half their retirement in Enron?
As to the other comments, I don’t listen to Limbaugh. Agree with much of what he says, but he is boring.
Concerning Social Security, of course we should have private accounts similar to a 403 (b) or 401 (k). Should they be able to place all their social security investments in Nextbigcompany.com? Of course, not! This is a typical liberal straw man. Because of the Left’s inablity to innovate our government programs, our schools are worthless in inner cities and we are facing trillions in debt load with SS and Medicare. Don’t want private accounts? No problem. There might not be any SS at all or it will be making payments that are worthless because of huge inflation and taxation of benefits.
Private accounts have worked tremendously well for some other countries and it is no big deal there. Congress also has the same ability. Why not everyone else?
May 23, 2007 at 11:12 PM #54647ParticipantMuch of these discussions turn on the degree to which regulation should be used. These public policy decision are case-specific. I’m not advocating total deregulation, but this experiment has worked well in the airline industry and in telecomunications (at least from a consumer perspective). Most every other sector is deregulated.
Globally, deregulation is the new paradigm, save Venzeuela. We can copy Hugo if you would like.
As to due dilligence, you are right this is less a protective tool if someone wants to circumvent securities laws with misrepresentation, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. (Before Sarbox, however, these laws were already on the books at the state and federal level (12 b 6, etc.) This was not the main effect of Sarbox; it was the burdensome reporting requirements.)
Due dilligence was only a partial recommendation, however. The primary protection is proper asset allocation. All of these problems would be avoided if common people stopped trying to make tremendous gains on specific companies. Why create billions in new goverment, hamper these industries, drive jobs overseas, etc. when you could warn investors to stop being so stupid and placing half their retirement in Enron?
As to the other comments, I don’t listen to Limbaugh. Agree with much of what he says, but he is boring.
Concerning Social Security, of course we should have private accounts similar to a 403 (b) or 401 (k). Should they be able to place all their social security investments in Nextbigcompany.com? Of course, not! This is a typical liberal straw man. Because of the Left’s inablity to innovate our government programs, our schools are worthless in inner cities and we are facing trillions in debt load with SS and Medicare. Don’t want private accounts? No problem. There might not be any SS at all or it will be making payments that are worthless because of huge inflation and taxation of benefits.
Private accounts have worked tremendously well for some other countries and it is no big deal there. Congress also has the same ability. Why not everyone else?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.