CONGRATULATIONS----MISS SPEAKER----YOU GO ON AND ON----AND SAY ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOTHING. CONGRATULATIONS---YOUR EFFORTS TO SAY NOTHING, HAVE SUCCEEDED.
was she kidding when she said "just a little bit of corruption"...if she was it's nothing to joke about...she seems to want to spread the blame around...good apologist for people who really knew what was going on but would later they did not.
If any other business did what they banking system did, they would have to settle damages with all sorts of people. They committed Fraud. Subprime lenders even had to settle litigation from the fraud. They are the ones who are supposed to know the risk. If a sock companys sells socks under cost and goes broke, yout don't blame the customers who bought the socks for a great price!!
Many lenders lied on these loans, the contracts should be null and void. No blame to customers then.
@EclecticSceptic At an even deeper level it was about stagnant growth in the productive sector pushing speculative finance to make profit through these kind of means. These personalities emerged out of that.
She's cute, but she is missing the main thing. Countrywide defrauded investors. They sold mortgage backed securities, but they didn't put the notes and mortgages into the securitization trusts. The MBSs are backed by nothing. CRA's gave ratings when there were no notes in the securitization trusts. Coutrywide told investors that the notes were in the trusts when they knew it wasn't true.
"a little bit of outright corruption"..."blinded by greed or self-delusion"
Wow. Trying to excuse people for destroying the lives of so many people is ridiculous. These people don't want to talk about it and screw themselves in the face of some of the richest people in the world. But you don't take their "inability" to answer and say, "They don't know."
"That's credit analysis? Relying on what people tell you?"
That's not what he meant. The crisis has other causes.
Interesting how the real devil in the details, that at every level govt regulation was promoting malinvestment, backing sub-prime mortgages, even propping up Enron which only failed because their scheme to trade govt pollution credits fell through when the Kyoto Protocols weren't enacted.
The Austrian economists have been warning of the "moral hazard" corruption of central banking for decades!
When we add a monetary (energy) value to goods and services greater than the monetary (energy) embodied into production, the profit margin becomes credit (a false claim on non-existent value). As all money must reflect the market value of an economys assets, new (energy) value must be imported to fill the claim in the form of new goods/services. Thats exponential growth folks. The profit system is obsolete in a world of finite energy/natural resources. Enough with the bullshit RSA.
When people talked to me about how regulation caused the financial crisis, I felt like calling them idiots. Now I feel kind of silly for not calling them idiots. When you allow this incentive to be easier, to race to the bottom, to exist the result we got was in hindsight inevitable. It's not often I feel glad to live in Canada, but I do because of this sort of nonsense that goes on.
It was underregulation. The times that the US boomed economically is when they had more regulation over these companies. The reason these companies close is because they know they will lose money and so they go "bankrupt" in order to not lose anymore money.
Under-regulation, and deregulation yes, that was basically my point. In hindsight I was somewhat unclear. And I see how it sounds nonsensical but some people out there actually think it was the regulation that we did have that caused the financial crises. As though there was overregulation.
@dookiecheez some of us would argue that any regulation is overregulation.
But to give you an example of why some of us think that regulation was a (a not the only) cause of this crisis go back and listen to the but where she talks about the rating agencies (RA), the RA’s had no choice but to give good ratings to these investments because if they didn’t the banks would simply go to a different RA. Now you tell me who created and enforces the system where the banks pay the RA?
I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be so disingenuous. You think that less regulation would have prevented them from racing to the bottom? Are you high?
@dookiecheez If the rating agencies were paid by people buying the bonds rather than those selling the investments then yes that would absolutely prevent a race to the bottom. If the rating agencies had to rely on their reputation to stay in business rather than relying on government regulation to keep out competition then that would probably have an effect too. But why bother to think when you can just accuse me of being high or disingenuous?
I would accuse your of being high or disingenuous because your stating something that makes absolutely no sense.
You think that removing regulation will fix how ineffective what 'we' had was? Seriously? You don't see how improving it instead of scrapping it could change things. Why are the only two options of paying the rating agencies, the sellers, or the buyers?
@dookiecheez how many times do regulations have to fail before you realise that they do more harm than good? Regulations give the government power, which leads to lobbying which leads to regulations being written in such a way as to benefit big business and protect it from competition.
A transaction has 2 parties the buyer and the seller which one do you think is most likely to pay for an honest assessment? The other option is to force a third party to pay and IMHO that is immoral.
Well first of all. I don't think a functional regulatory system has been in place in America, the general trend of the last several decades is to reduced regulation thereby impairing it's ability to do anything. As well as regulation is a success story in Canada. So it's not an failed test in any real sense of the phrase.
Now you're equating the government with big business without making the connection between deregulation of big business.
@dookiecheez don’t be fooled by the repeal of glass steagall, the trend of the past 10 years is increased regulation and indirect manipulation from central banks
goggle "Canadian Housing: Another Debt-Fuelled Bubble?" it might not be the success story you think it is
Big business want regulation, it limits competition and hence they seek to control the regulators, banking regulations in the us were almost written by goldman sachs, Cont...
The trend of the last ten years...how about a timescale required for real statistical analysis? If you don't start far enough back you can make it look however you want it to.
That's a speculative article without citations.
You've seriously got it backwards. You do realize that corporations regularly sue governments for regulations they don't agree with?
@dookiecheez How far back do you think we need to go? What metric should we be using?
The last 10 years is considered to be the lifecycle of this crisis, so if you think that the lack of regulations existed before that you need to explain why it happened now when regulation has increased and not 10 years ago.
The Unconventional Economist version of the story has links to the reports he uses.
Goggle disagrees that this is a common occurrence, can you give some examples?
Tell me, how much farther back do you need to go to hit the trend of deregulation? Granted that I'm assuming you're information is accurate that there has been regulation for the last 10 years. Something I find extremely suspect given who was in office.
The unconventional economist is the 5th result for me. The first 3 being a little sketchy if you know what I mean.
The loan that he compares to sub primes, were apparently only temporary.
@dookiecheez Are you saying that we can only start any comparison in a period of deregulation?
If you don’t believe me Google "All House Bills Passed in xxxx that Became Law" and search the PDF for “repeal”.
The sub prime loans were supposed to be only temporary too, the idea was to take a 3 year teaser rate and then refinance to another teaser rate. The article does admit that regulations in Canadian were better than the US but that doesn’t make them in any way good.
@dookiecheez My guess is you would have to go back to before 1930 but there is very little data available prior to 1995.
all I can suggest is try using google.co.uk like I am.
Whether or not they are still making the loans isn’t really that important (after all the US isn’t making that many sub-prime loans anymore) but it is a good sign, what is important is the debt to income ratio and the real value of the assets they are secured on.
cont--party as far as my understanding goes. I'm not sure what's immoral about using the higher organization, designed to make highly specialized society function, fund rating agencies. Whether or not you agree with the government, a broken system is not a reason to do things poorly.
In this case I do need more understanding of the subject, but it's not as though it's buyer = no regulation, and seller = regulation. So in that respect it is a false dichotomy.
@dookiecheez ...toy regulations were written by Mattel and Hasbro and Mattel was able to get an exemption
Impartial third party’s cannot last because they determine who succeeds
The immoral part is in forcing third parties to pay for the beneft investors.
It wasn’t supposed to be a dichotomy I have no idea how the free market would do it (no one does) the point was that despite the issue being very simple and the fact that the moral hazard was plainly obvious they still got it totally wrong....
@dookiecheez an example of how big business has corrupted the regulators.
I don’t what them to exist in the first place because when they do exist they are not impartial
forcing people (taxpayers) to pay for the rating agency is a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers (most of whom will never have any investments) to investors. When the poor do invest it is almost always as part of pension funds or other joint funds so the cost of any rating agency would be split over many people.
Aside from equating regulators with regulation, you can see how corrupt they were/are. Could you concede that aiming for impartial or uncorrupted regulatory systems is a reasonable course of action? As I see it, the social political trends are to oppose positive (think integers) change--and in hindsight the people who are of the same ideological basis will disagree with their predecessors. Why don't we compare what people said about welfare or social insurance? It'd sound similar.
@dookiecheez I am going to say no, in much the same way that I would say that aiming for perfect equality is an irrational course of action. aiming for something that cannot be achieved almost always leads to the people in charge blaming everyone else for there failure, they then introduce greater and greater controls in an attempt to force the world to work the way they think it should creating more problems that are the used as justification for more controls. continued....
@bbb695 The current crisis is a good example of this, the US government forces banks to make more subprime loans, they artificially lower the interest rates and then they introduce legislation that removes the need for a down payment, then, when it all inevitably blows up (search for peter schiff was right for one example of someone who did see it coming) they scream that it was the free market wot did it and all we need is more regulations. All because they want people to own their homes.
I'm sorry but your example is just terrible. So instead of trying for equality (an ideal of basic human rights) or functional regulation, we should abolish any attempts to progress in that direction? I really don't think you thought that analogy all the way through.
Your basic criticism is not that there is something inherently wrong with regulation, it's that we can't do it right which is largely just pessimism. How does society function without regulation?
@dookiecheez i said "Perfect equality" the point was if you start with an impossible goal nothing you do will work.
its not pessimism, if every attempt to tell people how to work causes more problems then perhaps the solution lies in a different direction.
Any details I try to give would be pure speculation. but I can tell you that no one would be forced into making a stupid decision by some regulator and no one will go bust because someone bribed a regulator to kill of the competition
You think functional regulation is an impossible goal. That is pessimism.
You seem to be branding the issue as to have regulation or not but do you actually want a free market with 0 regulation whatsoever. Let's kill the federal reserve, let's let banks do whatever the hell they want. The question is how do we regulate the free market not if.
I don't think it's fair to associate regulation with regulators. A good question is whether rating agencies in general are effective.
@dookiecheez Acutely I am very optimistic that people can resolve most of these issues when free to act, im pessimistic that that won’t happen and we will keep making the same mistakes.
The whole point of a free market is that there is no regulation, my question is why do you think any market needs regulation? do you really think that any centrally imposed rules can ever take into account the variations that exist in even a single place of business? cont...
@bbb695 Rating agencies are an interesting concept that could provide an essential service under a system of regulation (providing the regulation doesn’t neuter them). But I don’t think they would exist as individual entities in a free market, my guess (again no one knows how it would work) is that you would see banks selling and rating products from other banks with no need for central agencies, high street banks might even disappear to be replaced by local brokers.
The market is generally referred to as the free market, and yet there has been for a very long time basic regulations on said market. People tend to draw a line in the sand and say this is what I mean by regulation and this is not what I mean. And yet sand is sand, and regulation is regulation.
I think a market requires regulation for the same reason I think a country requires laws. The fact that there is a standard currency with exchange rates is a form of regulation. cont--
@dookiecheez I was under the impression that a market that is generally free but regulated is a mixed economy but the terms are fuzzy and so probably useless.
I wish they gave you more space in the comments then I wouldn’t have to use shorthand’s like this. in this case I was referring to any rules or laws that apply to certain people or groups simply because of their choice of how to earn a living and no other reason. cont...
@dookiecheez Yes we need laws against killing, theft, fraud or other violence, but do we need laws that only apply to barbers? If something is legal for group A then why should the rules be different for group B? And as long as neither is doing anything Illegal what right does the government have to tell them how to live or how to do business? If they do cross that line then punish only those responsible and make an example of them, don’t punish the entire group with regulations
Laws that only apply to barbers? I'm not sure I fully understand that meaning.
I would think that regulations should be consistent as a general rule, specifically I'm unsure what you're referring to.
Would you be for a law that limits the maximum salary to within a proportion of the lowest? So that companies have to raise their own minimum wage in order to raise their CEO's bonuses and such? It seems wrong that the gov has to raise min wage if a company is increasingly profitable
@dookiecheez like the regulation that says that barbers have to be state approved and licensed in parts of the US.
general rule; you may not misrepresent yourself for personal gain (fraud)
Regulation; banks must give information A B and C to a customer before opening an account
The general rule is not only all encompassing but it’s much more restrictive than the regulation, after all any dishonest bank can simply claim "but we gave them A,B and C just like you told us".
@dookiecheez when was the last time we had general rules rather than complicated regulation? You would probably have to go back to England in the time when gold smiths were morphing into banks, several gold smiths were taken to court over the way they failed to treat gold deposits as a warehoused resources. But even then this was biased on some pretty complicated law. when the goldsmiths won it effectively legalised the practice of fractional reserve banking.
Well let's see how many kinds of illegal fraud are there?
As for your comment on minimum wage just wow. You do realize it's formulated to make sure that people can actually afford to live in the country they are working in?
At this point I can see that you have a serious lack of perspective. People immigrate to America for a reason, and you seem to want to destroy those very reasons.
At the very least the rights of a company should end where the rights of the company begin...
did you watch the video? he does address that point in some detail.
People immigrate to America for many different reasons, but I’m willing to bet that the minimum wage is far from the top reason, after all look at all those Mexicans who are willing to work for less.
you ae making the same mistake as Block's opponent, assuming since we are rich and have lots of regulation that it must be linked and that we would be poor without regulation.
@dookiecheez Right, god forbid that you have to listen to arguments that challenge your core beliefs.
Holding a view is not a luxury, it is a fundamental right of all sentient beings (the alternative being thought crime), luxury’s are things like welfare states that simply cannot exist without a productive economy to back them up.
Don’t assume that my knowledge only extends as far as the US, if you have a point to make regarding another country then do so.
"As for your comment on minimum wage just wow. You do realize it's formulated to make sure that people can actually afford to live in the country they are working in?"
This is simply a lie, its fomulated to win the most votes.
@dookiecheez that works out to be $14500 PA or the equivelent of £9,319 GBP I have lived and still know people who live on less and the cost of living tends to be greater here in the uk.
@dookiecheez probably since both education and children are subsidised in the US and UK.
but if you believe that this rate is "formulated to make sure that people can actually afford to live" why do the tax codes in all 3 countries fail to acknowledge this? why do they all start taxing people before they reach this magical total? Why does the guy who can only get 20 hours per week at minimum wage still pay tax?
I missed one of your above comments so I'll address that now.
My core beliefs? Geez I'm sorry I didn't donate over an hour of my time for your whimsy.
If you can't wrap your head around the luxery of holding a position that could given different circumstances deprived you of basic human rights then hey, I'll stop writing as though you can comprehend language at a basic level.
I didn't assume anything, I made a suggestion. You know what perhaps means?
@dookiecheez what possible justification can there be for taxing some one before they earn enough to "afford to live"
but you did find the time to questioning my views despite making no attempt to understand them, then you claim that it was a "discussion which should not even have to be had" so I can only assume it’s a blind faith thing for you since no rational individual would rule out a discussion like that.
You don't think taxation is taken into account for determining what is required to afford to live?
Blind faith? No...history shows us that minimum wage was a major step for human rights. I do not question the value of human rights. Given that I would be dedicating over an hour of my time to question something that is obviously true because someone disagreed with me on yt comment sections is silly.
@dookiecheez No i don’t, why else would they tax the part time worker?
You "do not question" because it is "obviously true" , sounds like a believer to me.
As for this history, you do realise that here in the UK for example we didn’t have a Minimum wage until about 12 years ago and I might be wrong but I don’t remember any thought crime, nor any other mass trampling of human rights, in fact the human rights seem to have got worse since then.
I can't make heads or tails of your first sentence.
And what's this about thought crime?
I didn't think it was possible to quote mine someone in the yt comment section. I "do not question" the value of human rights....the second quotation is about the nature of minimum wage.
As for the UK, you'll have me believe there was an absence of any semblance of wage standards prior to minimum wage?
What part of my position "could given different circumstances deprived you of basic human rights"?
Don’t forget to list the rights that you think us evil extremists would get rid of
you suggested that I might "benefit from looking at countries without debts larger then their gdp" insinuating that I only look at countries with lots of debts.
@dookiecheez Allowing people to work for any amount that they and their employer agree on would deprive them of basic human rights and create thought crime?
You have a seriously screwed up perspective of rights, you think that so called "positive rights" are the same as basic human rights.
I'm not sure where you're getting thought crime from. O.o
Aside from the naivety that thinks a reasonable salary would come out of "deliberations" between employees and employers. There would likely not be deliberations. People will have to work what is available and companies won't have any incentive to pay them well or reasonably. It's what happens (or happened) in outsourcing to countries without such laws.
And where you're getting positive rights from I do not know.
@dookiecheez You seem think that I would be unable to hold my views under such a system!
You do realise that people have jobs that pay more than the minimum wage right now, don’t you? How do you think that happened? and if your answer is the mystical power of the minimum wage then I’m going to save you some time by again pointing out that the UK didn’t have one until 12 years ago.
Do you think people have the right to a job and or a living wage? if yes you believe in positive rights.
No omg I didn't realize that people were paid more then minimum wage. I just thought I was extra freaking special and got paid more then everybody else.
Now your just jumping all over the place. What exactly does minimum wage, and any other wage standard have to do with the creation of higher pay jobs?
Why would someone have the right to a job? I'm not even sure what that means. Is the alternative the capacity to have the right to not have a job? Nonsensical much?
@dookiecheez I can see no justification for government telling companies what to pay their staff, and yes that includes the minimum wage, in fact I see it doing more harm than good, any argument I can make in this regard would simply be to duplicate the work of Dr Walter Block in this video watch?v=6HTWy_vZfgE
Capping pay would simply lead to companies getting inventive with executive pay, in fact if i remember right that is how stock options came in to being.
Oh, okay. Yeah, she's completely forgetting that the reasons these banks lost money was because the government DE-regulated them, allowing them to lend to whoever they want, so they took advantage of people who couldn't pay back so that they could put them in debt for life. These loans happened to have been for homes, because at the time, the government wanted everyone to be a home-owner. But that's why the housing market collapsed first.
@trivium666fan The govt didnt de regulate them The govt said you WILL give these loans or we will sue you for discrimination. The govt forced housing loans and credit cards to be issued to anyone who asked. Reguardless of finiancial status nor credit history. The govt set out standards for the number of loans banks needed to give. Make no mistake the current economic status was completely created and forced on us
We should be sorry for George because he blew to bits a million people on a lie. We should be sorry for these Banksters because they had bad human nature & deficient educations. IT WAS ALL COORDINATED! Bubble to buy arms to invade/ use gas, steel, wood to build, sell resulting fake "derivitives" to "pay" for oil & cheap goods from China to keep people "happy". US SOLD all it's property to pay for GAS & BOMBS that have already been burned/dropped. Left with NOTHING but RAD. CHAMBERS now bottled!
It was a rigged system then, and remains an even more rigged system now.
You have to ask yourself, when a companies like Goldman Sachs, B of A, AIG, CSFB, et al, are in need of hundreds of billions(if not, trillions) of dollars at one point - and then wildy profitable and able to "pay back" all that money within one or two years without corresponding economic developement, WHAT GIVES?!
Easy. The companies were going to shut down because they were going to become losses to the people who run them. After the government decided to fun them the money to run themselves, pure microeconomic thought would suggest that this is now a one-time loss, and not a continual loss as was predicted before, so the businesses can stay afloat, with the owners paying back from what money they had. The losses would no longer be theirs, so they decide to stay on board.
CONGRATULATIONS----MISS SPEAKER----YOU GO ON AND ON----AND SAY ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOTHING. CONGRATULATIONS---YOUR EFFORTS TO SAY NOTHING, HAVE SUCCEEDED.
onehundredvoices100 5 months ago
@onehundredvoices100 she seems to have fooled the 97 people who gave it a thumbs up
optionsupdate 2 months ago
was she kidding when she said "just a little bit of corruption"...if she was it's nothing to joke about...she seems to want to spread the blame around...good apologist for people who really knew what was going on but would later they did not.
C2C81P44 6 months ago
This is a strange "lecture" because it shows no audience, and the only questions come from the guy sitting near her. I don't trust her.
xfugio 7 months ago
What a beautiful and intelligent woman!
queueupladeez 8 months ago
i can find the one villian. its the same villain that has been to blame since eternity. evelyn rothschild and the money changers.
punch a jew extremely hard in the face ... multiple times ... preferrably while wearing brass knuckles :)
corner them in abandoned stairwells with a few of your buddies ... that works best!
paragshah2112 9 months ago
Somehow, she combines smarts with ditzy naivete in a way I can only call 'Minnesotan.'
MikeDrewYT 9 months ago
If any other business did what they banking system did, they would have to settle damages with all sorts of people. They committed Fraud. Subprime lenders even had to settle litigation from the fraud. They are the ones who are supposed to know the risk. If a sock companys sells socks under cost and goes broke, yout don't blame the customers who bought the socks for a great price!!
Many lenders lied on these loans, the contracts should be null and void. No blame to customers then.
woodyouliketoknow 10 months ago 3
i got 99 problems but a bitch aint one, doesnt mention women once
ukchill1 1 year ago
Throw them all in jail for the rest of their lives.
jackooboy1 1 year ago
'The crisis wasn't about finance at all - it was about human nature.' - What a fatuous assertion.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@EclecticSceptic At an even deeper level it was about stagnant growth in the productive sector pushing speculative finance to make profit through these kind of means. These personalities emerged out of that.
mikem1234 7 months ago
Calvin and Hobbes ftw.
SpacemanSchmuck 1 year ago
Interesting stuff. One advice to her: speak slower, full stops are there not without a reason.
Irrehaare 1 year ago 2
She's cute, but she is missing the main thing. Countrywide defrauded investors. They sold mortgage backed securities, but they didn't put the notes and mortgages into the securitization trusts. The MBSs are backed by nothing. CRA's gave ratings when there were no notes in the securitization trusts. Coutrywide told investors that the notes were in the trusts when they knew it wasn't true.
BanksterBuster 1 year ago
"a little bit of outright corruption"..."blinded by greed or self-delusion"
Wow. Trying to excuse people for destroying the lives of so many people is ridiculous. These people don't want to talk about it and screw themselves in the face of some of the richest people in the world. But you don't take their "inability" to answer and say, "They don't know."
"That's credit analysis? Relying on what people tell you?"
That's not what he meant. The crisis has other causes.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
Interesting how the real devil in the details, that at every level govt regulation was promoting malinvestment, backing sub-prime mortgages, even propping up Enron which only failed because their scheme to trade govt pollution credits fell through when the Kyoto Protocols weren't enacted.
The Austrian economists have been warning of the "moral hazard" corruption of central banking for decades!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
When we add a monetary (energy) value to goods and services greater than the monetary (energy) embodied into production, the profit margin becomes credit (a false claim on non-existent value). As all money must reflect the market value of an economys assets, new (energy) value must be imported to fill the claim in the form of new goods/services. Thats exponential growth folks. The profit system is obsolete in a world of finite energy/natural resources. Enough with the bullshit RSA.
johnTconover 1 year ago
When people talked to me about how regulation caused the financial crisis, I felt like calling them idiots. Now I feel kind of silly for not calling them idiots. When you allow this incentive to be easier, to race to the bottom, to exist the result we got was in hindsight inevitable. It's not often I feel glad to live in Canada, but I do because of this sort of nonsense that goes on.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
It was underregulation. The times that the US boomed economically is when they had more regulation over these companies. The reason these companies close is because they know they will lose money and so they go "bankrupt" in order to not lose anymore money.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
@trivium666fan
Under-regulation, and deregulation yes, that was basically my point. In hindsight I was somewhat unclear. And I see how it sounds nonsensical but some people out there actually think it was the regulation that we did have that caused the financial crises. As though there was overregulation.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez some of us would argue that any regulation is overregulation.
But to give you an example of why some of us think that regulation was a (a not the only) cause of this crisis go back and listen to the but where she talks about the rating agencies (RA), the RA’s had no choice but to give good ratings to these investments because if they didn’t the banks would simply go to a different RA. Now you tell me who created and enforces the system where the banks pay the RA?
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be so disingenuous. You think that less regulation would have prevented them from racing to the bottom? Are you high?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez If the rating agencies were paid by people buying the bonds rather than those selling the investments then yes that would absolutely prevent a race to the bottom. If the rating agencies had to rely on their reputation to stay in business rather than relying on government regulation to keep out competition then that would probably have an effect too. But why bother to think when you can just accuse me of being high or disingenuous?
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
I would accuse your of being high or disingenuous because your stating something that makes absolutely no sense.
You think that removing regulation will fix how ineffective what 'we' had was? Seriously? You don't see how improving it instead of scrapping it could change things. Why are the only two options of paying the rating agencies, the sellers, or the buyers?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez how many times do regulations have to fail before you realise that they do more harm than good? Regulations give the government power, which leads to lobbying which leads to regulations being written in such a way as to benefit big business and protect it from competition.
A transaction has 2 parties the buyer and the seller which one do you think is most likely to pay for an honest assessment? The other option is to force a third party to pay and IMHO that is immoral.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Well first of all. I don't think a functional regulatory system has been in place in America, the general trend of the last several decades is to reduced regulation thereby impairing it's ability to do anything. As well as regulation is a success story in Canada. So it's not an failed test in any real sense of the phrase.
Now you're equating the government with big business without making the connection between deregulation of big business.
There should be an impartial third -- cont
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez don’t be fooled by the repeal of glass steagall, the trend of the past 10 years is increased regulation and indirect manipulation from central banks
goggle "Canadian Housing: Another Debt-Fuelled Bubble?" it might not be the success story you think it is
Big business want regulation, it limits competition and hence they seek to control the regulators, banking regulations in the us were almost written by goldman sachs, Cont...
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
The trend of the last ten years...how about a timescale required for real statistical analysis? If you don't start far enough back you can make it look however you want it to.
That's a speculative article without citations.
You've seriously got it backwards. You do realize that corporations regularly sue governments for regulations they don't agree with?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez How far back do you think we need to go? What metric should we be using?
The last 10 years is considered to be the lifecycle of this crisis, so if you think that the lack of regulations existed before that you need to explain why it happened now when regulation has increased and not 10 years ago.
The Unconventional Economist version of the story has links to the reports he uses.
Goggle disagrees that this is a common occurrence, can you give some examples?
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Tell me, how much farther back do you need to go to hit the trend of deregulation? Granted that I'm assuming you're information is accurate that there has been regulation for the last 10 years. Something I find extremely suspect given who was in office.
The unconventional economist is the 5th result for me. The first 3 being a little sketchy if you know what I mean.
The loan that he compares to sub primes, were apparently only temporary.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Are you saying that we can only start any comparison in a period of deregulation?
If you don’t believe me Google "All House Bills Passed in xxxx that Became Law" and search the PDF for “repeal”.
The sub prime loans were supposed to be only temporary too, the idea was to take a 3 year teaser rate and then refinance to another teaser rate. The article does admit that regulations in Canadian were better than the US but that doesn’t make them in any way good.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
No I am not saying we can only start there. I'm just asking for some clarification in order to better respond to your question.
Again, I dont' get the same google results as you, so I'll need more details.
I didn't mean there were teaser rates, I mean those loans are no longer being made.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez My guess is you would have to go back to before 1930 but there is very little data available prior to 1995.
all I can suggest is try using google.co.uk like I am.
Whether or not they are still making the loans isn’t really that important (after all the US isn’t making that many sub-prime loans anymore) but it is a good sign, what is important is the debt to income ratio and the real value of the assets they are secured on.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
cont--party as far as my understanding goes. I'm not sure what's immoral about using the higher organization, designed to make highly specialized society function, fund rating agencies. Whether or not you agree with the government, a broken system is not a reason to do things poorly.
In this case I do need more understanding of the subject, but it's not as though it's buyer = no regulation, and seller = regulation. So in that respect it is a false dichotomy.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez ...toy regulations were written by Mattel and Hasbro and Mattel was able to get an exemption
Impartial third party’s cannot last because they determine who succeeds
The immoral part is in forcing third parties to pay for the beneft investors.
It wasn’t supposed to be a dichotomy I have no idea how the free market would do it (no one does) the point was that despite the issue being very simple and the fact that the moral hazard was plainly obvious they still got it totally wrong....
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Why are you telling me about toy regulations?
And so you don't want them to be impartial?
"The immoral part is in forcing third parties to pay for the beneft investors."
Your going to have to elaborate on that one.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez an example of how big business has corrupted the regulators.
I don’t what them to exist in the first place because when they do exist they are not impartial
forcing people (taxpayers) to pay for the rating agency is a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers (most of whom will never have any investments) to investors. When the poor do invest it is almost always as part of pension funds or other joint funds so the cost of any rating agency would be split over many people.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Aside from equating regulators with regulation, you can see how corrupt they were/are. Could you concede that aiming for impartial or uncorrupted regulatory systems is a reasonable course of action? As I see it, the social political trends are to oppose positive (think integers) change--and in hindsight the people who are of the same ideological basis will disagree with their predecessors. Why don't we compare what people said about welfare or social insurance? It'd sound similar.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I am going to say no, in much the same way that I would say that aiming for perfect equality is an irrational course of action. aiming for something that cannot be achieved almost always leads to the people in charge blaming everyone else for there failure, they then introduce greater and greater controls in an attempt to force the world to work the way they think it should creating more problems that are the used as justification for more controls. continued....
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695 The current crisis is a good example of this, the US government forces banks to make more subprime loans, they artificially lower the interest rates and then they introduce legislation that removes the need for a down payment, then, when it all inevitably blows up (search for peter schiff was right for one example of someone who did see it coming) they scream that it was the free market wot did it and all we need is more regulations. All because they want people to own their homes.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
I'm sorry but your example is just terrible. So instead of trying for equality (an ideal of basic human rights) or functional regulation, we should abolish any attempts to progress in that direction? I really don't think you thought that analogy all the way through.
Your basic criticism is not that there is something inherently wrong with regulation, it's that we can't do it right which is largely just pessimism. How does society function without regulation?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez i said "Perfect equality" the point was if you start with an impossible goal nothing you do will work.
its not pessimism, if every attempt to tell people how to work causes more problems then perhaps the solution lies in a different direction.
Any details I try to give would be pure speculation. but I can tell you that no one would be forced into making a stupid decision by some regulator and no one will go bust because someone bribed a regulator to kill of the competition
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
You think functional regulation is an impossible goal. That is pessimism.
You seem to be branding the issue as to have regulation or not but do you actually want a free market with 0 regulation whatsoever. Let's kill the federal reserve, let's let banks do whatever the hell they want. The question is how do we regulate the free market not if.
I don't think it's fair to associate regulation with regulators. A good question is whether rating agencies in general are effective.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Acutely I am very optimistic that people can resolve most of these issues when free to act, im pessimistic that that won’t happen and we will keep making the same mistakes.
The whole point of a free market is that there is no regulation, my question is why do you think any market needs regulation? do you really think that any centrally imposed rules can ever take into account the variations that exist in even a single place of business? cont...
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695 Rating agencies are an interesting concept that could provide an essential service under a system of regulation (providing the regulation doesn’t neuter them). But I don’t think they would exist as individual entities in a free market, my guess (again no one knows how it would work) is that you would see banks selling and rating products from other banks with no need for central agencies, high street banks might even disappear to be replaced by local brokers.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
The market is generally referred to as the free market, and yet there has been for a very long time basic regulations on said market. People tend to draw a line in the sand and say this is what I mean by regulation and this is not what I mean. And yet sand is sand, and regulation is regulation.
I think a market requires regulation for the same reason I think a country requires laws. The fact that there is a standard currency with exchange rates is a form of regulation. cont--
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@bbb695
I don't think I fully understand the implications of "centrally imposed rules" because those words could apply to laws in general.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I was under the impression that a market that is generally free but regulated is a mixed economy but the terms are fuzzy and so probably useless.
I wish they gave you more space in the comments then I wouldn’t have to use shorthand’s like this. in this case I was referring to any rules or laws that apply to certain people or groups simply because of their choice of how to earn a living and no other reason. cont...
bbb695 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Yes we need laws against killing, theft, fraud or other violence, but do we need laws that only apply to barbers? If something is legal for group A then why should the rules be different for group B? And as long as neither is doing anything Illegal what right does the government have to tell them how to live or how to do business? If they do cross that line then punish only those responsible and make an example of them, don’t punish the entire group with regulations
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Laws that only apply to barbers? I'm not sure I fully understand that meaning.
I would think that regulations should be consistent as a general rule, specifically I'm unsure what you're referring to.
Would you be for a law that limits the maximum salary to within a proportion of the lowest? So that companies have to raise their own minimum wage in order to raise their CEO's bonuses and such? It seems wrong that the gov has to raise min wage if a company is increasingly profitable
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez like the regulation that says that barbers have to be state approved and licensed in parts of the US.
general rule; you may not misrepresent yourself for personal gain (fraud)
Regulation; banks must give information A B and C to a customer before opening an account
The general rule is not only all encompassing but it’s much more restrictive than the regulation, after all any dishonest bank can simply claim "but we gave them A,B and C just like you told us".
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
And a single example of where breaking the general rule ever resulted in any real successful judicial action and reimbursement of those defrauded?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez when was the last time we had general rules rather than complicated regulation? You would probably have to go back to England in the time when gold smiths were morphing into banks, several gold smiths were taken to court over the way they failed to treat gold deposits as a warehoused resources. But even then this was biased on some pretty complicated law. when the goldsmiths won it effectively legalised the practice of fractional reserve banking.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Well let's see how many kinds of illegal fraud are there?
As for your comment on minimum wage just wow. You do realize it's formulated to make sure that people can actually afford to live in the country they are working in?
At this point I can see that you have a serious lack of perspective. People immigrate to America for a reason, and you seem to want to destroy those very reasons.
At the very least the rights of a company should end where the rights of the company begin...
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez more than I can possibly count
did you watch the video? he does address that point in some detail.
People immigrate to America for many different reasons, but I’m willing to bet that the minimum wage is far from the top reason, after all look at all those Mexicans who are willing to work for less.
you ae making the same mistake as Block's opponent, assuming since we are rich and have lots of regulation that it must be linked and that we would be poor without regulation.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
I did not watch the video, it's a lot more of my time then I feel like dedicating to a discussion which should not even have to be had.
I'm not assuming that wealth comes from regulation. I'm making a connection between basic human rights and the regulation that upholds them.
It's a luxury to hold extreme conservative views, and I sincerely hope you appreciate having it.
Perhaps you would benefit from looking at countries without debts larger then their gdp.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Right, god forbid that you have to listen to arguments that challenge your core beliefs.
Holding a view is not a luxury, it is a fundamental right of all sentient beings (the alternative being thought crime), luxury’s are things like welfare states that simply cannot exist without a productive economy to back them up.
Don’t assume that my knowledge only extends as far as the US, if you have a point to make regarding another country then do so.
bbb695 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
"As for your comment on minimum wage just wow. You do realize it's formulated to make sure that people can actually afford to live in the country they are working in?"
This is simply a lie, its fomulated to win the most votes.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
So you can live working a standard 9-5, five out of 7 days a week, pulling in 280$ a week at 5$ an hour in America?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez that works out to be $14500 PA or the equivelent of £9,319 GBP I have lived and still know people who live on less and the cost of living tends to be greater here in the uk.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Sweet, now for the follow up. Can you raise a family or go to post secondary education on that?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez probably since both education and children are subsidised in the US and UK.
but if you believe that this rate is "formulated to make sure that people can actually afford to live" why do the tax codes in all 3 countries fail to acknowledge this? why do they all start taxing people before they reach this magical total? Why does the guy who can only get 20 hours per week at minimum wage still pay tax?
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Why wouldn't they pay wage tax?
I missed one of your above comments so I'll address that now.
My core beliefs? Geez I'm sorry I didn't donate over an hour of my time for your whimsy.
If you can't wrap your head around the luxery of holding a position that could given different circumstances deprived you of basic human rights then hey, I'll stop writing as though you can comprehend language at a basic level.
I didn't assume anything, I made a suggestion. You know what perhaps means?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez what possible justification can there be for taxing some one before they earn enough to "afford to live"
but you did find the time to questioning my views despite making no attempt to understand them, then you claim that it was a "discussion which should not even have to be had" so I can only assume it’s a blind faith thing for you since no rational individual would rule out a discussion like that.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
You don't think taxation is taken into account for determining what is required to afford to live?
Blind faith? No...history shows us that minimum wage was a major step for human rights. I do not question the value of human rights. Given that I would be dedicating over an hour of my time to question something that is obviously true because someone disagreed with me on yt comment sections is silly.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez No i don’t, why else would they tax the part time worker?
You "do not question" because it is "obviously true" , sounds like a believer to me.
As for this history, you do realise that here in the UK for example we didn’t have a Minimum wage until about 12 years ago and I might be wrong but I don’t remember any thought crime, nor any other mass trampling of human rights, in fact the human rights seem to have got worse since then.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
I can't make heads or tails of your first sentence.
And what's this about thought crime?
I didn't think it was possible to quote mine someone in the yt comment section. I "do not question" the value of human rights....the second quotation is about the nature of minimum wage.
As for the UK, you'll have me believe there was an absence of any semblance of wage standards prior to minimum wage?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
What part of my position "could given different circumstances deprived you of basic human rights"?
Don’t forget to list the rights that you think us evil extremists would get rid of
you suggested that I might "benefit from looking at countries without debts larger then their gdp" insinuating that I only look at countries with lots of debts.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
Getting rid of minimum wage could do that easily.
So now your trying to paint my criticism as condemning you as an evil extremist. That's really original, kudos.
If I were to insinuate that I wouldn't have said perhaps.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Allowing people to work for any amount that they and their employer agree on would deprive them of basic human rights and create thought crime?
You have a seriously screwed up perspective of rights, you think that so called "positive rights" are the same as basic human rights.
watch?v=4BODvhIKDN8
watch?v=NCG8LfM9-TU
watch?v=toLTPPG_zLI
all 3 total less than 10 mins
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
I'm not sure where you're getting thought crime from. O.o
Aside from the naivety that thinks a reasonable salary would come out of "deliberations" between employees and employers. There would likely not be deliberations. People will have to work what is available and companies won't have any incentive to pay them well or reasonably. It's what happens (or happened) in outsourcing to countries without such laws.
And where you're getting positive rights from I do not know.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez You seem think that I would be unable to hold my views under such a system!
You do realise that people have jobs that pay more than the minimum wage right now, don’t you? How do you think that happened? and if your answer is the mystical power of the minimum wage then I’m going to save you some time by again pointing out that the UK didn’t have one until 12 years ago.
Do you think people have the right to a job and or a living wage? if yes you believe in positive rights.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695
No omg I didn't realize that people were paid more then minimum wage. I just thought I was extra freaking special and got paid more then everybody else.
Now your just jumping all over the place. What exactly does minimum wage, and any other wage standard have to do with the creation of higher pay jobs?
Why would someone have the right to a job? I'm not even sure what that means. Is the alternative the capacity to have the right to not have a job? Nonsensical much?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I can see no justification for government telling companies what to pay their staff, and yes that includes the minimum wage, in fact I see it doing more harm than good, any argument I can make in this regard would simply be to duplicate the work of Dr Walter Block in this video watch?v=6HTWy_vZfgE
Capping pay would simply lead to companies getting inventive with executive pay, in fact if i remember right that is how stock options came in to being.
bbb695 1 year ago
@dookiecheez
Oh, okay. Yeah, she's completely forgetting that the reasons these banks lost money was because the government DE-regulated them, allowing them to lend to whoever they want, so they took advantage of people who couldn't pay back so that they could put them in debt for life. These loans happened to have been for homes, because at the time, the government wanted everyone to be a home-owner. But that's why the housing market collapsed first.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
@trivium666fan The govt didnt de regulate them The govt said you WILL give these loans or we will sue you for discrimination. The govt forced housing loans and credit cards to be issued to anyone who asked. Reguardless of finiancial status nor credit history. The govt set out standards for the number of loans banks needed to give. Make no mistake the current economic status was completely created and forced on us
anthonyww713 1 year ago
@anthonyww713
The government didn't force any of it. They gave incentives for banks to abide by those standards.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
@trivium666fan so i take it when the federal courst sued bank of america that was a incentive? your joking right
anthonyww713 1 year ago
@anthonyww713
Uh...What court case are you talking about? I don't remember that at all.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
We should be sorry for George because he blew to bits a million people on a lie. We should be sorry for these Banksters because they had bad human nature & deficient educations. IT WAS ALL COORDINATED! Bubble to buy arms to invade/ use gas, steel, wood to build, sell resulting fake "derivitives" to "pay" for oil & cheap goods from China to keep people "happy". US SOLD all it's property to pay for GAS & BOMBS that have already been burned/dropped. Left with NOTHING but RAD. CHAMBERS now bottled!
PhotonDrive 1 year ago
Crash JPig Morgan Buy Silver! Death to the financial terrorists ! The biggest, greediest thieves in the history of the earth !
raspberrybaggio 1 year ago 2
I've tried hard to watch the whole video but had to stop half way through. Really annoying to listen to this woman.
2010collapse 1 year ago
@2010collapse
Second.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
It was a rigged system then, and remains an even more rigged system now.
You have to ask yourself, when a companies like Goldman Sachs, B of A, AIG, CSFB, et al, are in need of hundreds of billions(if not, trillions) of dollars at one point - and then wildy profitable and able to "pay back" all that money within one or two years without corresponding economic developement, WHAT GIVES?!
It doesn't sound "right", because it isn't.
judoyodan 1 year ago
@judoyodan
Easy. The companies were going to shut down because they were going to become losses to the people who run them. After the government decided to fun them the money to run themselves, pure microeconomic thought would suggest that this is now a one-time loss, and not a continual loss as was predicted before, so the businesses can stay afloat, with the owners paying back from what money they had. The losses would no longer be theirs, so they decide to stay on board.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
A promise to pay for a promise to pay a/k/a the note, is not money lent; but rather, a wash. This is huge crime via the banking cartel a/k/a The Fed.
inspirediam 1 year ago
This talk is about of the History of the Financial Crisis; Enron was the canary in the mine...
TowkayBandrek 1 year ago 2
@TowkayBandrek Thanks for the heads up on the video topic I appreciate it.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago