This may not be popular with the Dems....

[Walter Joyce]

It's been a long time since a thread both made me laugh out loud and think about important current effects.

It seems to come down to caveat emptor and the tragedy of the commons versus government regulation and the promise of a fair market place. I believe we deregulated the banking and mortgage industries too much.

Given the chance for easy profits and a boom that eventually becomes a bursting bubble there will always be predatory lending. And the creation of mortgage backed securities and derivatives in general have been seen as voodoo economics, I mean seriously, who can actually tell me how any given derivative actually works in an Economic Shaman in my book.

I think regulating sound bank lending standards, like 20% as a down payment and fixed rate mortgages coupled with a ban on derivatives is a long way from becoming a socialist state. Some of the banks around the world who have managed to stay soundly afloat did so by sticking to such lending standards and avoiding the derivative market because they believe that if you don't understand an investment, no matter what the possible upside, you avoid it.

We need regulation because people are by nature both greedy and trusting, and not often are both qualities in the same person. It's nice to argue that people should avoid scam, legal or otherwise but there are laws against fraud and usury, regulations are just civil prohibitions on criminal conduct that is harder to prove. If we have laws, there are bound to be regulations because of the darker human traits and the varying degrees that we display them. Sometimes when you examine a situation you may think, well that person shouldn't necessarily go to jail but what he did is wrong and he should be punished in some way, usually a fine. Banking and market regulation is just an extension of those practices.

And again, none of that is even close to a socialist approach to the economy.

[Teazer]

I think regulating sound bank lending standards, like 20% as a down payment and fixed rate mortgages coupled with a ban on derivatives is a long way from becoming a socialist state. Some of the banks around the world who have managed to stay soundly afloat did so by sticking to such lending standards and avoiding the derivative market because they believe that if you don't understand an investment, no matter what the possible upside, you avoid it.

There are some situations where sub-prime loans are reasonable, however those situations are not frequent and should demand considerably higher interest rates by the lender. The lender should not be able to offload the entire risk of that loan through a derivative unless the derivative is priced correctly to meet the drastically increased risk associated with the incentive mismatch that happens there. They should certainly not be promoted by government policy. The market for such derivatives in the future will demand far higher returns by pricing such derivatives much lower, which will go a long way towards correcting the problem.

We need regulation because people are by nature both greedy and trusting, and not often are both qualities in the same person.

The greedy bit is both a good and bad thing. The government needs to set some enforceable standards along which each market is run. It should also promote the flow of information among market participants.

Sometimes when you examine a situation you may think, well that person shouldn't necessarily go to jail but what he did is wrong and he should be punished in some way, usually a fine. Banking and market regulation is just an extension of those practices.

Given the lack of transaction specific information in these markets, there is certainly a strong economic argument for limits on eg company leverage enforced by the government.

And again, none of that is even close to a socialist approach to the economy.

There's a wide continuum of possible systems between completely capitalist & completely socialist. Some markets are better run if organized closer to pure capitalism than others - usually where information is cheap, goods are homogenous etc etc.

[count]

My issue was with your first post was the not supporting the Dems, BUT message you put forth. I know the urge to keep ones political party out of the mix is overwhelming. You are right that there is plenty of blame to go around (although Dodd and Frank need to be in prison). Each party contributed in there own special way, once again selling us all down the river.

Didn't mean this as a personal attack, by the way.

Well puj, if you mean by keeping "ones political party out of the mix", my political party is not one of the 2 you are thinking of. My political choices have been right all along. If you listened to what Ross Perot had to say about deficits, or Ron Paul on the FRB, you would be better off today as I pointed out in my post. There are more than two political parties that contribute to our political process in this country. Even if only two are promoted by the mainstream media. So what are some of the news sources you like to listen to?

I'm not sure if the Dem's you mentioned, Chris and Barney should be in prison. I know Cheney and Bush should. I think we should work our way down from the top.

Maybe you didn't intend it as a personal attack. I'm pretty sure Walter made some excellent points too. Many of them the same as what I was saying. So I guess I did take your post personal. Sorry.

[Royal Dragon]

Can spell out why Bush should be in jail?

[shawnsegler]

E N D L E S S L I E S

[count]

Can spell out why Bush should be in jail?

Well, I'm no attorney, but,

E N D L E S S L I E S may not be the reason and total incompetence may not be a jailable offense, but the results of those lies equal treason, torture, violations of search and seizure, imprisonment, illegal use of public funds for private contracts not to mention the mismanagement of those contracts, illegal hiring and firing, blowing the cover of a cia agent which may have resulted in at least one death of another, the politically motivated commutation of the fall guy, obstruction, lies to congress and the people, and on and on. That's not to mention what we will find out about the deaths of thousands of Americans and 100's of thousands of innocent civilians in one of the 3 or 4 wars he started, his part in the total collapse of our economy and the rest of the worlds, the top secret energy meeting that lead to unbelievable profits and just watching that fake Texas swagger for the last 8 years.

How's that for starters? Any single one of those things would be enough for me. These and many more have already been laid out in articles of impeachment that were submitted to congress. You go ahead and defend him if you can. Or even want to.

[Royal Dragon]

That is a pack of accusations. What actual proof is there of any of this?

Can you name a specific incident that PROOF has been uncovered of an illegal doing, or violation of the law?

Or are you just tossing out random attacks because you have a personal issue against Bush?

[count]

That is a pack of accusations. What actual proof is there of any of this?

Can you name a specific incident that PROOF has been uncovered of an illegal doing, or violation of the law?

Or are you just tossing out random attacks because you have a personal issue against Bush?

That's it, those are just random attacks of non specific incidents I made up to troll your troll thread. I guess we don't have a debate after all. /

Yes, I have a personal issue against Bush/Cheney/Rove, but so does everyone in the world. If you don't than you just haven't been paying attention.

bye bye,

[Royal Dragon]

I guess we don't have a debate after all.

Reply]
What makes you think this was a debate? Haven't I just been asking questions for the most part?

[Michael]

RD, you may want to look up former LA county prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi who attended the most recent Congressional hearings on impeaching Bush, which were based on 35 articles of impeachment from Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Bugliosi accused him of murder, which he also wrote a book about. Bugliosi is actively encouraging anyone with the power to convene a grand jury anywhere in the USA where someone resided who died in Iraq or Afghanistan to start proceedings against Bush, Cheney, et al and prosecute them. Take a look at Kucinich' articles of impeachment.

[Steve James]

Well, so the story goes, the White House was had only one source for the information that Saddam had WMDs. That sole source --who had one of those typical CIA informant monickers-- was refuted by all the intelligence agencies and the UN inspectors. To many, it seems like the administration (yeah, "W") decided to listen to that informant. 2) Saddam did not attack the US or have anything to do with 9/11, and Iraq was not a sponsor of terrorism (or radical Islamism). Yet, his country was attacked, civilans wounded and killed, and much of the infrastructure was destroyed.

So, the question is "why shouldn't W be held criminally responsible?" Does what he did fall into the category of either a high crime or a high misdemeanor? Many people say yes.

[Royal Dragon]

Did Saddam Husein violate UN resolutions and signed agreements prior to the invasion? wasn't those violations the main reason for the invasion?

[count]

Did Saddam Husein violate UN resolutions and signed agreements prior to the invasion? wasn't those violations the main reason for the invasion?

No and no, The main reason for the invasion was Sadam had or would have a nuclear bomb and we sould soon see the mushroom cloud. The UN was against the invasion. Bush than submitted his forgeries and lies as proof to congress and made it clear if you are against it, your gone. Than he spent the next 5 years trying to tie his invasion to his war on terrah.

next questions!

Should be interesting to see who Colin Powell will endorse for President.

[Royal Dragon]

Hmm interesting comment. I seem to remember a long drawn out series of NU resolution violations, deadlines and broken agreements that lead to the conflict, AND I distinctly remember a UN coalition with military units from many of nations being involved in the invasion of Iraq. Even Australia sent troops.

Unless you were still in highschool during this time, and still not aware of the world beyond your personal social group, this should be common knowledge.

[Darthwing Teorist]

The countries were more or less coerced into supporting the invasion. Canada managed to minimize their role in Iraq but they had to go to Afghanistan. It was more a Coallition of the Coerced than a Coallition of the Willing.

The reasons for war shifted from accusing Iraq of 9/11 attacks, to WMDs, to helping the poor Iraqis out of their misery. All which proved to be false.