The Anti-Regulators are the Job Killers

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]I think everyone wants effective regulation. But today, most regulation is written and passed along to congressmen by the big boys themselves. They write their own rules. It provides a barrier to entry for smaller companies that gives the giant corporate ecosystem a protective shield a against competition.

Just look at who usually provides funding for these big legislative pushes. We are all in favor of regulation, but too often regulation means something completely different.[/quote]

Yes, exactly. You can be sure that most of the bills that affect businesses (and us, by extension) are being written by the lobbyists and businesses, themselves. The healthcare bill, financial regulation, etc…all written by those from within the industry. The politicians are there to provide cover for the corporate oligarchs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Are you aware of the definition of a corporatist system? More important, are you at all familiar with how a corporatist system functions, especially its supporting role as a means of production for an autocratic or autarchic government? I don’t think you are, or perhaps we can just ascribe it to your generally Leftist cant.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the fact that, while you’ve described the disease, you’ve failed to illuminate how more regulation is going to cure it. I’m curious as to this. What is your solution to this problem? And don’t just answer “more regulation”. What sorts of regulation? What type of teeth? We haven’t heard your plan to keep us from descending into the totalitarian abyss. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Are you aware of the definition of a corporatist system? More important, are you at all familiar with how a corporatist system functions, especially its supporting role as a means of production for an autocratic or autarchic government? I don’t think you are, or perhaps we can just ascribe it to your generally Leftist cant.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the fact that, while you’ve described the disease, you’ve failed to illuminate how more regulation is going to cure it. I’m curious as to this. What is your solution to this problem? And don’t just answer “more regulation”. What sorts of regulation? What type of teeth? We haven’t heard your plan to keep us from descending into the totalitarian abyss. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Are you aware of the definition of a corporatist system? More important, are you at all familiar with how a corporatist system functions, especially its supporting role as a means of production for an autocratic or autarchic government? I don’t think you are, or perhaps we can just ascribe it to your generally Leftist cant.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the fact that, while you’ve described the disease, you’ve failed to illuminate how more regulation is going to cure it. I’m curious as to this. What is your solution to this problem? And don’t just answer “more regulation”. What sorts of regulation? What type of teeth? We haven’t heard your plan to keep us from descending into the totalitarian abyss. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Are you aware of the definition of a corporatist system? More important, are you at all familiar with how a corporatist system functions, especially its supporting role as a means of production for an autocratic or autarchic government? I don’t think you are, or perhaps we can just ascribe it to your generally Leftist cant.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the fact that, while you’ve described the disease, you’ve failed to illuminate how more regulation is going to cure it. I’m curious as to this. What is your solution to this problem? And don’t just answer “more regulation”. What sorts of regulation? What type of teeth? We haven’t heard your plan to keep us from descending into the totalitarian abyss. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Are you aware of the definition of a corporatist system? More important, are you at all familiar with how a corporatist system functions, especially its supporting role as a means of production for an autocratic or autarchic government? I don’t think you are, or perhaps we can just ascribe it to your generally Leftist cant.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let’s focus on the fact that, while you’ve described the disease, you’ve failed to illuminate how more regulation is going to cure it. I’m curious as to this. What is your solution to this problem? And don’t just answer “more regulation”. What sorts of regulation? What type of teeth? We haven’t heard your plan to keep us from descending into the totalitarian abyss. Inquiring minds want to know.

[permabear]

This thread is making me sick. You guys can’t actually believe that we have true capitalism in this country??

No, what we have is crony capitalism – bailouts for those that are connected, shifting the losses to the public.

Real capitalism would have bankrupted the Wall St firms, holding them responsible for their actions. Yes, it would have caused massive repercussions throughout the economy. But that happened anyway.

[permabear]

This thread is making me sick. You guys can’t actually believe that we have true capitalism in this country??

No, what we have is crony capitalism – bailouts for those that are connected, shifting the losses to the public.

Real capitalism would have bankrupted the Wall St firms, holding them responsible for their actions. Yes, it would have caused massive repercussions throughout the economy. But that happened anyway.

[permabear]

This thread is making me sick. You guys can’t actually believe that we have true capitalism in this country??

No, what we have is crony capitalism – bailouts for those that are connected, shifting the losses to the public.

Real capitalism would have bankrupted the Wall St firms, holding them responsible for their actions. Yes, it would have caused massive repercussions throughout the economy. But that happened anyway.

[permabear]

This thread is making me sick. You guys can’t actually believe that we have true capitalism in this country??

No, what we have is crony capitalism – bailouts for those that are connected, shifting the losses to the public.

Real capitalism would have bankrupted the Wall St firms, holding them responsible for their actions. Yes, it would have caused massive repercussions throughout the economy. But that happened anyway.

[permabear]

This thread is making me sick. You guys can’t actually believe that we have true capitalism in this country??

No, what we have is crony capitalism – bailouts for those that are connected, shifting the losses to the public.

Real capitalism would have bankrupted the Wall St firms, holding them responsible for their actions. Yes, it would have caused massive repercussions throughout the economy. But that happened anyway.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][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.[/quote]

Yes, I’m against central banking (and fractional reserve banking), especially as it exists in its current form.

BTW, there is no way someone can make the argument that we only reward those who most effectively allocate capital. What we have today is a financial system that rewards those with the right connections — especially those with connections in government and the Fed. It rewards those who create laws and a financial infrastructure that funnels money back to themselves; it has nothing to do with productivity.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][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.[/quote]

Yes, I’m against central banking (and fractional reserve banking), especially as it exists in its current form.

BTW, there is no way someone can make the argument that we only reward those who most effectively allocate capital. What we have today is a financial system that rewards those with the right connections — especially those with connections in government and the Fed. It rewards those who create laws and a financial infrastructure that funnels money back to themselves; it has nothing to do with productivity.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][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.[/quote]

Yes, I’m against central banking (and fractional reserve banking), especially as it exists in its current form.

BTW, there is no way someone can make the argument that we only reward those who most effectively allocate capital. What we have today is a financial system that rewards those with the right connections — especially those with connections in government and the Fed. It rewards those who create laws and a financial infrastructure that funnels money back to themselves; it has nothing to do with productivity.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][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.[/quote]

Yes, I’m against central banking (and fractional reserve banking), especially as it exists in its current form.

BTW, there is no way someone can make the argument that we only reward those who most effectively allocate capital. What we have today is a financial system that rewards those with the right connections — especially those with connections in government and the Fed. It rewards those who create laws and a financial infrastructure that funnels money back to themselves; it has nothing to do with productivity.

[Author]

Posts