- This topic has 378 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
CardiffBaseball.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM #730600October 13, 2011 at 2:16 PM #730601
CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=UCGal]I wouldn’t hold those companies’ CEOs out as shining examples of rich CEOs hiring lots of US workers. The data doesn’t show it.[/quote]
Gates, Buffet, Ellison, Page, Walton founded the companies. They started with ZERO employees.
Your “analysis” is utterly ridiculous.
Try again. Here’s a hint: Time did not start in 2008.[/quote]
We are getting sidetracked here. It’s not about overthrowing the rich or the establishment, or class warfare.
I personally believe that the establishment is the repository of culture, knowledge, beauty and wealth. Overthrow the establishment and you’re got nothing but chaos, poverty and redneck jungle culture.
It’s about reforming the system so we have more equity. It’s about preventing companies such as Capital One from making profits by dumping toxic credit on the American people and charging 40% interest for that privilege.[/quote]
I disagree, from the comments of some of the participants, it does sound like class warfare to me.
October 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM #730603jstoesz
ParticipantGovernment should be about the rule of law, equal protection under the law, blind justice and all of that. As soon as you start playing social justice, or giving business targeted carve outs, you are picking favored classes, and giving opportunities for a few to game the many. Giving more and more power to the political/regulatory class will just result in more injustice. And soon enough your boys will not be running the show, and your opponents will have all the power you so happily gave up. And on that day, George W. Bush won’t look so bad.
Fix the inputs don’t equalize the outputs.
October 13, 2011 at 3:00 PM #730605briansd1
GuestLet’s look at toxic credit, jstoesz.
Why not ban banks from providing automatic overdraft protection. How is that to people’s benefit to be given the “benefit” of charging a $2 cup of coffee while paying a $10 bank fee for the privilege?
The banks should simple decline transactions over the limit. The consumer doesn’t buy the product and is better off.
How it is beneficial to allow banks to charge exorbitant fees while encouraging Americans to get further and further into debt?
October 13, 2011 at 3:05 PM #730606Arraya
ParticipantIt’s not about overthrowing anything except an outdated, unscientific and irresponsible world view.
Capitalism as a social system and ideology is in it’s terminal stage. Human understanding has evolved past it’s dictates. Not only are the structural problems worsening, it’s foundational assumptions are shown to be hugely unscientific and erroneous.
All our institutions are invalid and that is a bitter pill to swallow for those closest to the top of the wealth pyramid.
Class warfare that has been waged successfully towards the bottom 80% for the past several decades does not come close to the ontological shift that is taking place.
October 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM #730607Participant[quote=briansd1]
We are getting sidetracked here. It’s not about overthrowing the rich or the establishment, or class warfare.
I personally believe that the establishment is the repository of culture, knowledge, beauty and wealth. Overthrow the establishment and you’re got nothing but chaos, poverty and redneck jungle culture.
It’s about reforming the system so we have more equity. It’s about preventing companies such as Capital One from making profits by dumping toxic credit on the American people and charging 40% interest for that privilege.[/quote]
Actually, rednecks are very supportive of the establishment, so you are inline with them there. They will fight to uphold the monetary pecking order.
October 13, 2011 at 3:28 PM #730610Participant[quote=briansd1]Let’s look at toxic credit, jstoesz.
Why not ban banks from providing automatic overdraft protection. How is that to people’s benefit to be given the “benefit” of charging a $2 cup of coffee while paying a $10 bank fee for the privilege?
The banks should simple decline transactions over the limit. The consumer doesn’t buy the product and is better off.
How it is beneficial to allow banks to charge exorbitant fees while encouraging Americans to get further and further into debt?[/quote]
If people want, they can join a credit union or other entity they feel is non abusive. Why should you have an opinion on the matter?
Question Brian, do you like free checking? That service is paid for by other fees.
Now I am no lover of banks, personally I find them horribly corrupt. The solution is not to regulate their every action, because they will just find a new way to get their money (see BofA and their debit fees). I think we should have let them fail, not continue on in their dishonesty and general screwing over of the American public. The fact that we haven’t fixed the accounting rules yet is simply mind boggling. Bank sheet transparency anyone?
If people do not learn to watch out for those hidden fees when very little is on the line, imagine how stupid they will feel when their ARM blows up…
Woops.
October 13, 2011 at 3:28 PM #730612Guest[quote=Arraya]
Capitalism as a social system and ideology is in it’s terminal stage. Human understanding has evolved past it’s dictates. Not only are the structural problems worsening, it’s foundational assumptions are shown to be hugely unscientific and erroneous.
[/quote]I agree that capitalism is unscientific. But I don’t see a scientific system of allocating resources.
I’m not against a smooth transition to a scientific system to replace capitalism. But we need a way to preserve the accumulated knowledge and culture of civilization.
But I don’t want a period of chaos and free-for-all where anarchy and poverty run rampant.
[quote=Arraya]
Actually, rednecks are very supportive of the establishment, so you are inline with them there. They will fight to uphold the monetary pecking order.[/quote]haha, I guess they are useful for some things. They don’t belong on the monetary pecking order but defend it.
October 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM #730613Guest[quote=jstoesz]
Now I am no lover of banks, personally I find them horribly corrupt. The solution is not to regulate their every action, because they will just find a new way to get their money (see BofA and their debit fees). I think we should have let them fail, not continue on in their dishonesty and general screwing over of the American public. The fact that we haven’t fixed the accounting rules yet is simply mind boggling. Bank sheet transparency anyone?
[/quote]That involves regulations. If we continue the status quo of before the 2008 financial crisis, we’ll get another financial crisis.
The reality is that the banks got the bailouts in late 2008 already. That can’t be undone. Now what? Let them get a free ride, or make them pay a share of their profits back to the American people?
October 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM #730614ParticipantAre you assuming I am against all regulations? I and most people are not, that is a common straw.
We need to regulate banks and all industry in a way that ensures the truth is told. That is what regulations are for, to protect us against fraud. If a bank is hiding its bad investments under some phony boloney accounting practices, that should be illegal and every effort of the government should go into eliminating fraud.
But our Government is still in collusion with the banks, because they have not fixed the accounting practices of banks. I like the post from Ritholtz on the Big Picture the other day…
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/bankings-self-inflicted-wounds/
Get transparency into our banks.
I would also say, we need to limit the total assets of a single bank to some manageable size, so that there by nature of their size will never be another TBTF issue again.
But these policies are even handed across the board reforms. They are not restricting a banks specific dealings, only applying an across the board ethic to the entire industry. I would even venture to guess that most tea party types would agree with these common sense reforms.
The Frank Dodd bill and the myriad of other “regulations” are about control, not eliminating and illuminating fraud. It gives regulators unlimited power to make crap up as they go along, and it is not good regulation. It is ultimate corruption waiting to happen.
October 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM #730617sdrealtor
ParticipantIt looks like OWS is turning into quite the party
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_nyc_lam_sterdam_bmE4vlV5aDUWhBRv9IbaiK
October 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM #730618Anonymous
Guest[quote=briansd1]How it is beneficial to allow banks to charge exorbitant fees while encouraging Americans to get further and further into debt?[/quote]
That’s a bad example of what you are probably trying to say.
Government regulations should protect against what economists call “market failures.” One type of market failure can occur when one party to a transaction is far more sophisticated and powerful than the other. This often happens with banks and consumers, but overdraft fees aren’t a significant enough transaction to warrant regulation.
A better example would be truth-in-lending disclosures, e.g. a regulation that requires the terms and rules of a mortgage loan be stated clearly. It is not reasonable to expect all consumers to be finance wizards or experts on mortgage law (and mortgages are big transactions.)
But I don’t want my tax dollars enforcing laws that protect idiots who can’t bother to figure out how much money they have in their checking accounts.
October 13, 2011 at 5:58 PM #730619Participant[quote=sdrealtor]It looks like OWS is turning into quite the party
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_nyc_lam_sterdam_bmE4vlV5aDUWhBRv9IbaiK%5B/quote%5D
Quite the shocker. Sex and drugs at a youth anti-establishment protest. I blame it on that darn rock and roll music. lol
October 13, 2011 at 7:31 PM #730621Username
ParticipantYou guys really think the cold weather will end the protests? Doesn’t anyone remember the Wisconsin protest last year? Personally I think Scott Walker’s days are numbered and the only reason he hasn’t been recalled yet is because he hadn’t been in office a full year (as required by state law). Those protests were in F’in Wisconsin in February and still the turn out was pretty good. I think the thing that finally ended them was the recall elections. OWS numbers might go down, but it’s amazing how much free time you have when you don’t have a job.
Also class warfare has been going on for the last 30 years by the folks at the top who put short term profits over long term stability. Outsourcing production has destroyed the working class and in the end cannibalized the demand for their products. Henry Ford paid workers $5 a day and sold an affordable car, as a result his workers purchased the cars they produced and his company was successful.
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” John Steinbeck
October 13, 2011 at 7:34 PM #730623CoronitaParticipant[quote=pri_dk][quote=briansd1]How it is beneficial to allow banks to charge exorbitant fees while encouraging Americans to get further and further into debt?[/quote]
That’s a bad example of what you are probably trying to say.
Government regulations should protect against what economists call “market failures.” One type of market failure can occur when one party to a transaction is far more sophisticated and powerful than the other. This often happens with banks and consumers, but overdraft fees aren’t a significant enough transaction to warrant regulation.
A better example would be truth-in-lending disclosures, e.g. a regulation that requires the terms and rules of a mortgage loan be stated clearly. It is not reasonable to expect all consumers to be finance wizards or experts on mortgage law (and mortgages are big transactions.)
But I don’t want my tax dollars enforcing laws that protect idiots who can’t bother to figure out how much money they have in their checking accounts.[/quote]
I agree, in theory…Except if you’ve looked at the latest truth in lending disclosures, I’m not really sure things are much clearer these days than before. The only thing that I think is different, is that it’s just much harder for some broker to underwrite a liar loan..
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.