Nail in the coffin?

US government gaining more control of of the financial sector
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328020013164184.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection
The feds with choose what companies to "allow" to be in operation due to protection of "national security"...

Quote :

But they did create a process for seizing and dismantling faltering companies, tools the government lacked in 2008 during the seemingly chaotic events surrounding Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group Inc.

Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact.

What will it take to wake up the people!!!!!!!

This part of it bothers me. The govt creating regulations telling corporations how they can spend and/or invest their own money.What a joke they have demonstrated over and over their incompetence in manging money.

"Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the "Volcker" rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds"

It was govt meddling that led to the whole financial crises in the first place and now they are going to fix it and prevent it in the future with more govt meddling? What a joke! The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same things and expecting a different result.

"Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact."

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

It was govt meddling that led to the whole financial crises in the first place and now they are going to fix it and prevent it in the future with more govt meddling? What a joke! The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same things and expecting a different result.

This has been going on for 100 years or more, at some point the masses have to WTFU and turn of the TV and start paying attention.

I look at this differently, I think big corporation run the government. Them, big banks, big oil all have there hands in play in most major laws.

jahan wrote:

I look at this differently, I think big corporation run the government. Them, big banks, big oil all have there hands in play in most major laws.

I think you are partly right. I contend corporations and those in the government use each other. Its the classic I scratch your back you scratch my back reach around all being done at the expense of the 'small' people. That is why it is bogus to call the big bankers and CEO's capitalists. They are NOT if they ask the government to intervene and skew the playing field for their gain. That also shows what little is left of a market driven economy. Yet, the pinheads in DC cite examples of how the market has 'failed' when it was never allowed a chance to work/fail. But, this is the slippery slope we put ourselves in when we invite the government into our homes via pet projects, bail outs, expecting the government to do charitable actions such as disaster relief programs, welfare, social security, health care 'reform', bail outs, 'loans', tax breaks for certain actions while raising taxes on others.

proutdoors wrote:

jahan wrote:

I look at this differently, I think big corporation run the government. Them, big banks, big oil all have there hands in play in most major laws.

I think you are partly right. I contend corporations and those in the government use each other. Its the classic I scratch your back you scratch my back reach around all being done at the expense of the 'small' people. That is why it is bogus to call the big bankers and CEO's capitalists. They are NOT if they ask the government to intervene and skew the playing field for their gain. That also shows what little is left of a market driven economy. Yet, the pinheads in DC cite examples of how the market has 'failed' when it was never allowed a chance to work/fail. But, this is the slippery slope we put ourselves in when we invite the government into our homes via pet projects, bail outs, expecting the government to do charitable actions such as disaster relief programs, welfare, social security, health care 'reform', bail outs, 'loans', tax breaks for certain actions while raising taxes on others.

Great post, what I love is when Obama receives thousands of dollars from BP and other corporations, then when something happens that could cause his ratings to drop he tries to look like he has had no association with them and he is going to fix the problem. The umbilical cord needs to be cut from the federal government in my opinion.

Gordy, posting links like that should have a warning attached. I just puked in my mouth reading that dribble!

So why does the government feel they need to protect banks? Why can't they just have to live with the decisions they make, good or bad?

"We need every American to make their voice heard and send a message loud and clear: the days of Wall Street recklessly betting against our futures are over."


Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senate, 05/17/2010

voiceofreason wrote:

"We need every American to make their voice heard and send a message loud and clear: the days of Wall Street recklessly betting against our futures are over."


Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senate, 05/17/2010

And what about OPEC? Seriously, do you really think it's just Wall Street that has the blame for all this?

Sooooooo.... Exactly how long ago was it that we were paying $4.50 per gallon???
These prices and Corp profit taking didn't have anything with an economic meltdown???


You get these freaking embarrassing Texan Oil Corp Lackeys out of control and shit happens perty damn quick doesn't it???

Look PRO can pimp the un-regulated free market economic model like a good conservative.

Unless you take humans out of the equation you will continue to have the boom and bust this brings. Look at BP.... Do you think they filled the drill shaft full of salt water instead of oil, with the safety of their workers, the environment or anything other than a balance sheet in mind??? It's a huge F-ing disaster and we've got this prick from Texas apologizing for a shakedown.... Seriously are ya shitting me???

Do you think the boys at Goldman Sachs when they were discussing the "shitty deal" they KNEW they were advising their customers to invest in could have used a little oversight?? Do ya find it ironic that they also personally invested in the hedge that they knew would come when this deal went to shit???

Look there are scumbags in the Corp. world there are those that could give a rats ass less if they are importing baby toys filled with lead for our kids, stealing their employees retirement or advising their customers to invest in funds that are backed by toxic assets. Greed is one of the big seven as defined by The Man Above... It's human nature. As a consumer I am tickled shitless to know that I represent more than a tenth of a percent of profit for some corp.

Build and market a decent product honestly at a fair price and more power to ya.
cut corners, Hire illegals, and basically be a scumbag and you will do time

Don't forget how great the all knowing and benign jackoffs sitting in the senate and house have managed the peoples money. It started with Bush but the current administration has made Bush look like an amatuer when it comes to spending the peoples money on useless frivolous bullshit. Now they have the audacity to think they can tell corporations how to manage their money what a joke. The people creating these regulations supposedly to protect the people are bigger crooks than the big corps ever thought of being.

Blaming 'greedy lenders', or even foolish borrowers, for what happened merely begs the question: What institutional factors gave rise to all the foolish lending and borrowing in the first place? Why did the banks have so much money available to lend to in the mortgage market - so much so that they could throw it at applicants who lacked the jobs, income, down payment money, and good credit? These phenomena, as well as the housing bubble and the economic crisis more generally, are consistently traceable to government intervention in the economy. In other-words, this crisis would not have been possible if not for government intrusion into the banking and housing sectors. The money would not have been available to lend to the borrowers w/o the Federal Reserve doling it out to the lenders like candy on Halloween. Even still, without interest rates at/below 1%, the lenders likely would have never made many of the loans they approved. Then, with Freddie and Fannie having special incentives to buy these inane mortgages from the lenders, it encouraged the lenders to approve even more toxic loans as their debt was bought up by Freddie/Fannie. As the saying goes: "ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY". And ALL the money starts and ends with the Federal Reserve. Why do you think the Federal Reserve, with the assistance of the DEMOCRATS in Congress, is fighting so hard being audited? Why is there even a SINGLE member of Congress opposed to an audit of the Federal Reserve? How can anyone say the Democrats are looking out for the masses when they are blocking this audit?

Bullshit!!! Conservative Party line..... These banks took these shit deals an bundled them with decent deals and sold them..... The Govt gets blamed for financing what they were sold. It's another form of a hedge. Plain and simple!!!

voiceofreason wrote:

Bullshit!!! Conservative Party line..... These banks took these shit deals an bundled them with decent deals and sold them..... The Govt gets blamed for financing what they were sold. It's another form of a hedge. Plain and simple!!!

Answer ONE question, how were these banks able to access such large amounts of money? Also, I want to thank you, up until now I had no idea there was a Conservative Party. I guess I learned something today.

You've never heard of a "party line"????? Dipshit!!!!

The funds were available because of the way these loans were sold.
For every crap loan the banks would wrap them around several good loans. Being un regulated F and F dropped the cash.

Now as far as who forced F and F to loan the money depends on who ya ask.


Look my point here is un regulated markets do several things. Maximize profits.
Stagnate wages for all but the top, Re distribute Wealth UP, send Jobs overseas,
and encourage corners being cut.

proutdoors wrote:

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in economics for showing how central banks - which are creatures of government, NOT the free market - set the boom-bust cycles in motion when they try to take shortcuts to prosperity.

IMO Nobel prizes don't amount for shit anymore, if the likes of Al Gore and Obama have won em. Just saying.....

shotgunwill wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in economics for showing how central banks - which are creatures of government, NOT the free market - set the boom-bust cycles in motion when they try to take shortcuts to prosperity.

IMO Nobel prizes don't amount for shit anymore, if the likes of Al Gore and Obama have won em. Just saying.....

I use mine for a doorstop in the garage.

shotgunwill wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in economics for showing how central banks - which are creatures of government, NOT the free market - set the boom-bust cycles in motion when they try to take shortcuts to prosperity.

IMO Nobel prizes don't amount for shit anymore, if the likes of Al Gore and Obama have won em. Just saying.....

I agree, but Hayek didn't get his BEFORE he had accomplished a damn thing. He actually EARNED his. His book, The Road To Serfdom, is one of the greatest books, if not the greatest book, on human action and economics. He didn't get the Nobel Prize for using a flawed model, like the hockey stick, and he didn't get it before he had done even a single thing to bring 'peace' to the world. Instead, he received his several decades AFTER his work had been proven.

getting back to economics....

When will the American debt catch up to us? What will happen when the debtors come collecting? Hence the nail in the coffin!??!

shotgunwill wrote:

IMO Nobel prizes don't amount for shit anymore, if the likes of Al Gore and Obama have won em. Just saying.....

I think that it's important to draw a distinction between the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by a Norwegian committee, and the others — especially the science prizes — that are awarded by Swedish organizations.

Yonni wrote:

When will the American debt catch up to us? What will happen when the debtors come collecting? Hence the nail in the coffin!??!

I'm always hesitant to get into economics discussions because it's a dense and complex subject that doesn't lend itself to short, non-pedantic responses. With that said, there are all kinds of adverse effects that result from a large and growing national debt; entire books have been written about it from various viewpoints, models and theories.

One thing, however, is to remember that differences exist in cause and effect when discussing microeconomics versus macroeconomics. For example, when an individual or a company becomes unable to pay off debt, various consequences occur that don't occur, or occur in different ways, on macro levels.

Simplistically speaking, if a person is unable to pay off the loan to his house, the mortgage company forecloses and assumes ownership and control of the house.

If, on the other hand, Country A, for example, becomes awash in the currency of Country B due to trade imbalances, it might use that currency to buy up Country B's debt, which, in effect places that currency back into the hands of Country B, with Country A, then, assuming an increasingly important stake and influence in ensuring the continued health of Country B's economy. The result being the two country's economies becoming tightly interdependent and intertwined, with wealth flowing from one country to the other until a balance is achieved that offsets the conditions that caused the initial imbalance. Country A, in the event of a monetary obligation default by Country B, couldn't, in practical terms, simply just repossess Country B's assets in the way that a mortgage company repossesses a house.

As I said, all this is far, far more complicated than this and is subject to an incredibly diverse and complex set of variables that could warrant a discussion several thousand pages long, but what I'm trying to point out is that it's a mistake to draw too close of parallels between the familiar economics that apply at smaller scales and those that begin to take precedence only at the higher level of economic relationships that exist between countries. Any country with an unmanageably high level of debt is in big trouble, but that trouble differs considerably — although still analogous — from the trouble incurred by an individual in the same situation.