HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I don't think that refusing to view corporations as "people" is government regulation of business. So the Stevens information was not relevant, ergo, it was a strawman. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Citizens United was the deregulation of business and unions to spend as they please to influnce elections. .

Just as repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act was deregulation of banking/business to do as they please in regards to banking/investing/gambling.

How can that not be germane?

Would you put your money in a bank without the FDIC backing your deposit, knowing the bank was going to go out and gamble with your money?

Now if you want to argue that the Government should not be in the business of insuring depositers that is a valid point. That sure the hell would limit the size of banks!

The government should not be in the business of flood insurance. People in Kansas should not be rebuilding homes in Flordia just because people in Flordia do not pay the real cost of owning a home in a hurricane ally.

But like I said Big Business is really government. It runs the government. The Tea Nuts think the government is the problem and big business is the solution. They are one and the same. Big Business is like the Godfather and government is just the goons or enforcers that come collect wtf the Godfather wants. Thes idiots worship the Godfather and hate the goons! This thread just shows how flawed that logic is. You have those nuts arguing that the cop did not do his job even though they do not want the cop there to do the job. That is what I call Tea Nut logic. Similiar to those idiots screaming "Get the government out of my Medicare!". They are just a bunch of angry old white folks and ever time they get angry they blame liberals. THey couldn't figure out who to blame when Bush had the House and Senate!

Your question shows how low your economic/business IQ really is.

The answer to your question is simple. It is a question of rate of return on the deposit and how risk adverse the depositor is. And tens of thousands of depositors have accounts that are well in excess of the FDIC maximum coverage. They are typically called jumbo CDs. They typically have higher yields than the lower (and insured) CDs. And moreover, hundreds of thousands of investors have money invested in non-insured investment accounts.

I am convinced that WTF doesn't know beans about economic activity.

.......Would you put your money in a bank without the FDIC backing your deposit, knowing the bank was going to go out and gamble with your money?
Originally Posted by WTF

Please put what you think the order of importance leading up to the 2008 meltdown.

For example

1) Repeal of G/S
2) Barney Frank

Can you come up with say five?

Your question shows how low your economic/business IQ really is.

The answer to your question is simple. It is a question of rate of return on the deposit and how risk adverse the depositor is. And tens of thousands of depositors have accounts that are well in excess of the FDIC maximum coverage. They are typically called jumbo CDs. They typically have higher yields than the lower (and insured) CDs. And moreover, hundreds of thousands of investors have money invested in non-insured investment accounts.

I am convinced that WTF doesn't know beans about economic activity. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yes such as AIG. Those people were going to lose what was suppossed to be low low risk investments because somebpdy at AIG bet all their money and lost. We bailed them out.

Your answer shows how little you understand leverage and ratio in regards to banking.

WE would have had a banking collaspe without the government bailout. Do you understand just what that means?

Do you believe in to big to fail? Do you believe the government should regulate how big a company can become?

Your question shows how low your economic/business IQ really is.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Please put what you think the order of importance leading up to the 2008 meltdown.

For example

1) Repeal of G/S
2) Barney Frank

Can you come up with say five? Originally Posted by WTF

Anytime Whirly....you economic genius.

Get COG to give you a hand, he says he used to teach this shit.

Now we know what happened to Kansas!

Well, yes. Big Business and government are one and the same. Particularly Wall Street.

But to answer your question, if I could find a non-FDIC bank, that's where my money would go.

Any alleged regulation of the banks is smoke and mirrors. The banks will get what they want.

Please put what you think the order of importance leading up to the 2008 meltdown.

For example

1) Repeal of G/S
2) Barney Frank

Can you come up with say five? Originally Posted by WTF

Whirlyway, was this to hard a project for a man with your esteem economic background?

Come on man, teach me something!

Economic cycles are part of capitalism and free markets. I think it isn't desireable to over regulate free markets.

The bottom line is that the mess was caused by banks and other investors that relied too heavily on the AAA ratings given to mortgage-backed securities by the three SEC-recognized ratings agencies: Standard and Poors, Moody’s, and Fitch. Failure of government!!!!!

For that reason, regardless of what caused the financial crisis the way to more efficient markets is not through more regulation.

The solution isn't more regulation, but less. A different paradigm between markets and consumers. More risk to the Capitalists and more information (transparency) for consumers.


As economists Jeffery Friedman says: "There are competing powers, as in a capitalist economy, there is more chance of heterogeneity than when there is a single regulator with power over all the competitors. At worst, in the limited case of a market that, through herd behavior, completely converged on an erroneous idea or practice, unregulated capitalism would likely be no worse than regulated capitalism, since an idea or practice that is homogeneously accepted by all market participants in a given time and place is likely to be accepted by the regulators of that time and place, too. But at best, competing businesses will embody different theories, with the bad ones tending to be weeded out."

Economic cycles are part of capitalism and free markets. I think it isn't desireable to over regulate free markets.



." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So you are not aganist regulation, you are just aganist over regulation?

So what we are talking about is the degree of regulations?.

The bottom line is that the mess was caused by banks and other investors that relied too heavily on the AAA ratings given to mortgage-backed securities by the three SEC-recognized ratings agencies: Standard and Poors, Moody’s, and Fitch. Failure of government!!!!!



." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Big Business convinced government to repeal G/S. Deregulation.

They then proceed to blow up the markets and convince government to bail them out...and you think Big Business does not own Government.

What you seem to be saying is to leave Big Business alone and eveything will be all right. But the evidence suggest that if you leave Big Business alone they will just buy the government (Just like they did with the repeal of G/S. Hello, remember Phil Gramm?) and let the ignorant masses blame Government for doing exactly wtf Big Business wants.

That is Tea Nut Logic. It makes no sense.

For that reason, regardless of what caused the financial crisis the way to more efficient markets is not through more regulation.

." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So now you are for no regulations? Make up your mind.

WTF; you know I am using the failure of regulation as an arguement against it. More regulations isn't the solution. They haven't worked, they have made markets less efficient, they have caused immense failures with their false sense of security that it gives consumers.

You have no proof that business (in the absence of big government) tends to buy influence with government. If federal government isn't a player in business activity, then business has no reason to co-opt federal politicans and policy.

Without federal regulation of business activity, business is forced to go to 50 state houses to achieve their goal. That is a difficult hurdle for most businesses. But under the current system, all they need to do is hire a K Street lobbyist and meet a few key players in the Capitol. Easy peasy for business and big government.

And the 2008 meltdown wasn't because of G/S being removed. It was because the rating agencies were baloney. Had they been kept honest by the SEC, the melt down wouldn't have happened.

You do not understand what was occurring in the capital market run up to 2008.

WTF; you know I am using the failure of regulation as an arguement against it. More regulations isn't the solution.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Where you are getting confused is regulation with deregulation. G/S worked for 50+ years, within 10 years of deregulation of G/S, investment bankers had nearly blown up the country!

This is worth repeating...within 10 years of deregulation of G/S, investment bankers had nearly blown up the country

They haven't worked, they have made markets less efficient, they have caused immense failures with their false sense of security that it gives consumers.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Deregulation is wtf gave a false sense of security. Greenspan and company (bought and paid for by Goldman and others...) went along with you free market loons. Deregulate and we will self regulate! That is wtf Big Business sold you and you believed it. You still believe it , even after they were the cause of this huge bubble and deficit mess we are in now.

They have been paid and they passed off all their liabalities to the public. You want that group of theives leading the way? They all should be in jail, Greenspan and folks at AIG and Goldvman and other investment banks , along with the rating agencies!

You have no proof that business (in the absence of big government) tends to buy influence with government. If federal government isn't a player in business activity, then business has no reason to co-opt federal politicans and policy.

Without federal regulation of business activity, business is forced to go to 50 state houses to achieve their goal. That is a difficult hurdle for most businesses. But under the current system, all they need to do is hire a K Street lobbyist and meet a few key players in the Capitol. Easy peasy for business and big government.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You need to study history...start with JD Rockafeller.

And the 2008 meltdown wasn't because of G/S being removed. It was because the rating agencies were baloney. Had they been kept honest by the SEC, the melt down wouldn't have happened.

You do not understand what was occurring in the capital market run up to 2008. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

G/S was the start.

The rating agencies were paid by the investment banks. Remember without regulations...there is no way to keep them honest, it is hell doing so with regulations. But wtf you really need is jail time. That will deter all but the Madoff amongist them. That is wtf they did to the MOB. These bankers are no different. They should have gotten jail time.

Well, yes. Big Business and government are one and the same. Particularly Wall Street.

But to answer your question, if I could find a non-FDIC bank, that's where my money would go.

Any alleged regulation of the banks is smoke and mirrors. The banks will get what they want. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

NON FDIC BANKS


Aruba
China
Mexico
etc etc etc

just step outside the country and open up accounts until you pass out

NON FDIC BANKS


Aruba
China
Mexico
etc etc etc

just step outside the country and open up accounts until you pass out Originally Posted by CJ7

Good point...COG, you wanna a deregulated bank, go bank with those crooks in China!

Yo Cog ... if China isnt good enough you can always hedge your investments in Hati

Whirly and COG should deposit all their money in a Nigerian Bank!