State of the Union

[Estolcles]

Originally Posted by hatelore [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah but, wtf am I going to do when I can;t even afford pot anymore! Its a fuckin travesty I tell you~

I'm at that point right now, AND IT SUCKS ASS! Now I can't shut the damn suicidal voices up that are in my head. >_<

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If this idealistic, naive horseshit were accurate, the "average American" wouldn't have spent the last decade being buttfucked, now, would they? Obviously those profits aren't making it into the "stock holdings of the average American". Even if your typical middle class porker is investing wisely, that's often nothing more than minor, supplemental income that isn't going to offset their wages and benefits being pillaged.

I gave you a big hint when I said you should think about the questions for a couple days, or make a quick emotional response devoid of any intellectual thought. You went with going full retard, so good job on that.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Blame the government as much as you want, but note that this economic catastrophe followed the most rampant deregulation since the beginning of the last century. Or in the words of Alan Greenspan, "OOPS I WAS WRONG LOL". Yes, the government and politicians played a huge role in the whole thing too, but I'm willing to bet you blame them wholly.

Pretty awesome deregulation on display here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty awesome deregulation on display here:

Total volume of new regulations ≠ volume of new financial regulations, which is the barely relevant figure.

Also, look at your fucking source: Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market advocacy group that opposes environmental regulation, green energy, and the widely accepted scientific position on climate change, among other abominable views. Not saying that discredits the data in any way, but it's worth noting.

Also, I'm pretty sure the technological revolution, the radical reformation of the American way of life, and the tripling of our population that has occurred since 1930 accounts for at least some of the increased rate of regulation additions.

Further, any law that has the net effect of deregulation, may still produce a sizable regulatory volume because it is still a written legislative document. For example, all of these laws which served to deregulate the financial industry were probably quite long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit...ry_Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2...stitutions_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E...0%93Bliley_Act

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit...ry_Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2...stitutions_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E...0%93Bliley_Act

Are those really the greatest 3 cases of financial deregulation you could find? Because an act from 1980 that forced all banks in the country to abide by the Fed's policies, which can be created without consent of Congress, hardly sounds like massive deregulation. One or two bones thrown to the way of these banks is more than offset by the reams of rules imposed by the Fed.

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are those really the greatest 3 cases of financial deregulation you could find? Because an act from 1980 that forced all banks in the country to abide by the Fed's policies, which can be created without consent of Congress, hardly sounds like massive deregulation. One or two bones thrown to the way of these banks is more than offset by the reams of rules imposed by the Fed.

Half of all financial regulation wouldn't exist if banks didn't act like organized crime outfits. Financial regulation is almost always due to specific events that trigger it.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by moklianne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Half of all financial regulation wouldn't exist if banks didn't act like organized crime outfits. Financial regulation is almost always due to specific events that trigger it.

I don't disagree with that analysis. I just find it funny that some people think we had some kind of massive deregulation of the banking sector, which happens to be one of the most (if not THE most) highly regulated industries. And when someone who holds that belief comes up with 3 examples, one of which actually had a net effect of adding regulation over banks, I literally laugh my ass off.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't disagree with that analysis. I just find it funny that some people think we had some kind of massive deregulation of the banking sector, which happens to be one of the most (if not THE most) highly regulated industries. And when someone who holds that belief comes up with 3 examples, one of which actually had a net effect of adding regulation over banks, I literally laugh my ass off.

The acts didn't have the net effect of regulation simply because they added a few minor stipulations; their most major provisions were sweeping and decisive changes to the way banks were allowed to do business. I can't even fathom how you can dispute that meaningful financial deregulation didn't take place during that period, that's not something that is commonly disputed. If you take issue with the words I use to describe it, that's more understandable.

Here's another one that excluded over-the-counter derivatives from being regulated, and reduced the scope of the CFTC.

I know you want so badly to believe a lack of regulation didn't contribute (as one of many factors) to our economy getting buttfucked, because that takes a shit on your tea party world view.

What will it take for you to accept the reality of what happened? Alan Greenspan literally admitting that his libertarianesque fiscal policy was wrong?

Originally Posted by Alan Greenspan

I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ... I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.

Originally Posted by Alan Greenspan

The overall view I take of regulation is, I took an oath of office when I became Federal Reserve chairman. I'm here to uphold the laws of the land passed by Congress, not my own predilections.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The acts didn't have the net effect of regulation simply because they added a few minor stipulations; their most major provisions were sweeping and decisive changes to the way banks were allowed to do business. I can't even fathom how you can dispute that meaningful financial deregulation didn't take place during that period, that's not something that is commonly disputed. If you take issue with the words I use to describe it, that's more understandable.

You have a very restricted set of information available to you if you have never considered whether regulation as a whole (not just specific laws, but also the agencies that write rules which are defacto law) has increased or decreased. I'm sure in the echo chamber that is your little corner of the world, you've not heard the story of "deregulation caused the problem!" being disputed.

[Orruar]

Also, it's probably not best to listen to Alan Greenspan's account of what happened. Do you think the police give much weight to the story of a bank robber after catching him red handed? Greenspan has every reason in the world to lie and deflect.