The Anti-Regulators are the Job Killers

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.[/quote]

In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve. When they push money into the market (which might not be matched with true demand via productive businesses needing to expand, etc.), it is supply-driven, not demand-driven, and this means that they are pushing money into the economy that **might** be used for productive purposes, but it could just as easily be used for speculation.

While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” I would disagree. It creates an environment that is ripe for ever-growing speculative bubbles that distort markets and end up causing far more damage than any good they create during the up cycle.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.[/quote]

In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve. When they push money into the market (which might not be matched with true demand via productive businesses needing to expand, etc.), it is supply-driven, not demand-driven, and this means that they are pushing money into the economy that **might** be used for productive purposes, but it could just as easily be used for speculation.

While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” I would disagree. It creates an environment that is ripe for ever-growing speculative bubbles that distort markets and end up causing far more damage than any good they create during the up cycle.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.[/quote]

In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve. When they push money into the market (which might not be matched with true demand via productive businesses needing to expand, etc.), it is supply-driven, not demand-driven, and this means that they are pushing money into the economy that **might** be used for productive purposes, but it could just as easily be used for speculation.

While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” I would disagree. It creates an environment that is ripe for ever-growing speculative bubbles that distort markets and end up causing far more damage than any good they create during the up cycle.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.[/quote]

In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve. When they push money into the market (which might not be matched with true demand via productive businesses needing to expand, etc.), it is supply-driven, not demand-driven, and this means that they are pushing money into the economy that **might** be used for productive purposes, but it could just as easily be used for speculation.

While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” I would disagree. It creates an environment that is ripe for ever-growing speculative bubbles that distort markets and end up causing far more damage than any good they create during the up cycle.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.[/quote]

In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve. When they push money into the market (which might not be matched with true demand via productive businesses needing to expand, etc.), it is supply-driven, not demand-driven, and this means that they are pushing money into the economy that **might** be used for productive purposes, but it could just as easily be used for speculation.

While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” I would disagree. It creates an environment that is ripe for ever-growing speculative bubbles that distort markets and end up causing far more damage than any good they create during the up cycle.

[ILoveRegulation]

There are pockets of capitalism in the U.S., but what we mostly have now is a corporatist system.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ money to Goldman Sachs at 0% interest so that they can lever up 30:1 and buy U.S. Treasuries at 3%, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ $3.3 trillion to politically favored corporations at 0% interest, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve buys $2 trillion in bonds in the name of quantitative easing, that’s not capitalism.

We have a BS system where those at the tippy-top get bailed out, driving up the U.S. debt to $14 trillion. However, when it comes time to pay the bill, it’s the middle class who have to pay it with their taxes or with a reduced social safety net.

And spare me the ‘personal responsibility’ canard. The banks have a responsibility not to offer products that end up blowing up the economy. If the banksters were bailed out and don’t have to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their actions, why should the individual borrowers?

[ILoveRegulation]

There are pockets of capitalism in the U.S., but what we mostly have now is a corporatist system.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ money to Goldman Sachs at 0% interest so that they can lever up 30:1 and buy U.S. Treasuries at 3%, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ $3.3 trillion to politically favored corporations at 0% interest, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve buys $2 trillion in bonds in the name of quantitative easing, that’s not capitalism.

We have a BS system where those at the tippy-top get bailed out, driving up the U.S. debt to $14 trillion. However, when it comes time to pay the bill, it’s the middle class who have to pay it with their taxes or with a reduced social safety net.

And spare me the ‘personal responsibility’ canard. The banks have a responsibility not to offer products that end up blowing up the economy. If the banksters were bailed out and don’t have to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their actions, why should the individual borrowers?

[ILoveRegulation]

There are pockets of capitalism in the U.S., but what we mostly have now is a corporatist system.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ money to Goldman Sachs at 0% interest so that they can lever up 30:1 and buy U.S. Treasuries at 3%, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ $3.3 trillion to politically favored corporations at 0% interest, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve buys $2 trillion in bonds in the name of quantitative easing, that’s not capitalism.

We have a BS system where those at the tippy-top get bailed out, driving up the U.S. debt to $14 trillion. However, when it comes time to pay the bill, it’s the middle class who have to pay it with their taxes or with a reduced social safety net.

And spare me the ‘personal responsibility’ canard. The banks have a responsibility not to offer products that end up blowing up the economy. If the banksters were bailed out and don’t have to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their actions, why should the individual borrowers?

[ILoveRegulation]

There are pockets of capitalism in the U.S., but what we mostly have now is a corporatist system.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ money to Goldman Sachs at 0% interest so that they can lever up 30:1 and buy U.S. Treasuries at 3%, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ $3.3 trillion to politically favored corporations at 0% interest, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve buys $2 trillion in bonds in the name of quantitative easing, that’s not capitalism.

We have a BS system where those at the tippy-top get bailed out, driving up the U.S. debt to $14 trillion. However, when it comes time to pay the bill, it’s the middle class who have to pay it with their taxes or with a reduced social safety net.

And spare me the ‘personal responsibility’ canard. The banks have a responsibility not to offer products that end up blowing up the economy. If the banksters were bailed out and don’t have to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their actions, why should the individual borrowers?

[ILoveRegulation]

There are pockets of capitalism in the U.S., but what we mostly have now is a corporatist system.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ money to Goldman Sachs at 0% interest so that they can lever up 30:1 and buy U.S. Treasuries at 3%, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve ‘lends’ $3.3 trillion to politically favored corporations at 0% interest, that’s not capitalism.

When the Federal Reserve buys $2 trillion in bonds in the name of quantitative easing, that’s not capitalism.

We have a BS system where those at the tippy-top get bailed out, driving up the U.S. debt to $14 trillion. However, when it comes time to pay the bill, it’s the middle class who have to pay it with their taxes or with a reduced social safety net.

And spare me the ‘personal responsibility’ canard. The banks have a responsibility not to offer products that end up blowing up the economy. If the banksters were bailed out and don’t have to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their actions, why should the individual borrowers?

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve.[/quote]

The Fed has a big influence on the market price of some instruments, but the vast majority of our markets are pretty close to true capitalism.

I’m not really sure what you are arguing here: Are you against central banking? That’s a complicated debate and the alternatives may not be any more appealing.

[quote]While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” [/quote]

You bring up this point often, and it is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that prizes should be handed out for simply taking risk. There is a difference between “risk” and “recklessness” in the context of investments.

Risk is another word for “getting things done, trying new things, taking initiative, pursing new ideas, thinking outside the box, etc.” (Not all financial risk involves a hot new startup or product – most capital in our system flows to mundane activities like building a new plant or setting up a new field office.) Of course sometimes new endeavors create value, sometimes they don’t – that’s where the risk comes into play. All of the prosperity in America today is the cumulative outcome of endeavors involving financial risk.

Why do we reward the risk takers? Actually, we don’t reward all of them (or shouldn’t.) We reward the ones who take successful risks. In economics jargon, we reward those who most effectively allocate capital. It’s basically a process of natural selection, and history has proven that it works well.

I do agree that our economy should be primarily driven by investment and not speculation (two activities that have a lot in common, but are fundamentally different.) An ideal solution would be one where we could eliminate massive speculation without stifling investment, but there’s no easy way to implement this.

I’m in favor of increased regulation and substantial restrictions on certain activities, such as leveraged derivatives trading. But we have to be careful how we do it. Our economy needs capitalism now more than ever.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve.[/quote]

The Fed has a big influence on the market price of some instruments, but the vast majority of our markets are pretty close to true capitalism.

I’m not really sure what you are arguing here: Are you against central banking? That’s a complicated debate and the alternatives may not be any more appealing.

[quote]While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” [/quote]

You bring up this point often, and it is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that prizes should be handed out for simply taking risk. There is a difference between “risk” and “recklessness” in the context of investments.

Risk is another word for “getting things done, trying new things, taking initiative, pursing new ideas, thinking outside the box, etc.” (Not all financial risk involves a hot new startup or product – most capital in our system flows to mundane activities like building a new plant or setting up a new field office.) Of course sometimes new endeavors create value, sometimes they don’t – that’s where the risk comes into play. All of the prosperity in America today is the cumulative outcome of endeavors involving financial risk.

Why do we reward the risk takers? Actually, we don’t reward all of them (or shouldn’t.) We reward the ones who take successful risks. In economics jargon, we reward those who most effectively allocate capital. It’s basically a process of natural selection, and history has proven that it works well.

I do agree that our economy should be primarily driven by investment and not speculation (two activities that have a lot in common, but are fundamentally different.) An ideal solution would be one where we could eliminate massive speculation without stifling investment, but there’s no easy way to implement this.

I’m in favor of increased regulation and substantial restrictions on certain activities, such as leveraged derivatives trading. But we have to be careful how we do it. Our economy needs capitalism now more than ever.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve.[/quote]

The Fed has a big influence on the market price of some instruments, but the vast majority of our markets are pretty close to true capitalism.

I’m not really sure what you are arguing here: Are you against central banking? That’s a complicated debate and the alternatives may not be any more appealing.

[quote]While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” [/quote]

You bring up this point often, and it is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that prizes should be handed out for simply taking risk. There is a difference between “risk” and “recklessness” in the context of investments.

Risk is another word for “getting things done, trying new things, taking initiative, pursing new ideas, thinking outside the box, etc.” (Not all financial risk involves a hot new startup or product – most capital in our system flows to mundane activities like building a new plant or setting up a new field office.) Of course sometimes new endeavors create value, sometimes they don’t – that’s where the risk comes into play. All of the prosperity in America today is the cumulative outcome of endeavors involving financial risk.

Why do we reward the risk takers? Actually, we don’t reward all of them (or shouldn’t.) We reward the ones who take successful risks. In economics jargon, we reward those who most effectively allocate capital. It’s basically a process of natural selection, and history has proven that it works well.

I do agree that our economy should be primarily driven by investment and not speculation (two activities that have a lot in common, but are fundamentally different.) An ideal solution would be one where we could eliminate massive speculation without stifling investment, but there’s no easy way to implement this.

I’m in favor of increased regulation and substantial restrictions on certain activities, such as leveraged derivatives trading. But we have to be careful how we do it. Our economy needs capitalism now more than ever.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]In a truly “capitalist” system, rates would be determined by “the market,” not by the Federal Reserve.[/quote]

The Fed has a big influence on the market price of some instruments, but the vast majority of our markets are pretty close to true capitalism.

I’m not really sure what you are arguing here: Are you against central banking? That’s a complicated debate and the alternatives may not be any more appealing.

[quote]While I know that many believe “risk takers” deserve to make lots of money simpley for “taking risk,” [/quote]

You bring up this point often, and it is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that prizes should be handed out for simply taking risk. There is a difference between “risk” and “recklessness” in the context of investments.

Risk is another word for “getting things done, trying new things, taking initiative, pursing new ideas, thinking outside the box, etc.” (Not all financial risk involves a hot new startup or product – most capital in our system flows to mundane activities like building a new plant or setting up a new field office.) Of course sometimes new endeavors create value, sometimes they don’t – that’s where the risk comes into play. All of the prosperity in America today is the cumulative outcome of endeavors involving financial risk.

Why do we reward the risk takers? Actually, we don’t reward all of them (or shouldn’t.) We reward the ones who take successful risks. In economics jargon, we reward those who most effectively allocate capital. It’s basically a process of natural selection, and history has proven that it works well.

I do agree that our economy should be primarily driven by investment and not speculation (two activities that have a lot in common, but are fundamentally different.) An ideal solution would be one where we could eliminate massive speculation without stifling investment, but there’s no easy way to implement this.

I’m in favor of increased regulation and substantial restrictions on certain activities, such as leveraged derivatives trading. But we have to be careful how we do it. Our economy needs capitalism now more than ever.

[Author]

Posts