Quote:
Originally Posted by _poto_
the government isn't just rewarding big players here... and the government sure as hell doesn't care much enough about the mortgage market to drop a trillion dollars on it... what the government is trying to do is keep the derivatives market from melting down which would force a massive global deleveraging/liquidation on a scale never before seen...
|
Right, but that's the issue. They have constructed a game where if several fail, all fail, so it means that an entire segment of the global economy is allowed to play a game of no-lose capitalism that is subsidized by everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotsOfZeros
As stated before, I tend to lean more towards the pure capitalist ideals: If they can't afford it, they don't get the loan. I don't care what color they are. Let the banks decide what is a good risk for their lending standards and keep the government out of it. The government pressure to loan to unqualified purchasers has backfired immensely and we will all pay for that. My taxes will go to bail out Fannie, Freddie and others, the inflation is going to kill me at the grocery store (see devaluation of the dollar when we keep printing 'funny money'), and the house I own is now most likely worth less than when I purchased it due to the ever-softer real estate market (see 'appraisal comparable sales' and vacant houses).
|
Right. It's not just capitalism, it's free market economics. You have to allow cause and effect to play out. What's happening now, is moral hazard. The effect is being transferred onto people who had little or nothing to do with the failure. In every other aspect of our lives, we would consider such actions unacceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Regulation is in some markets and industries very important. It is not an ex post facto law by definition or practice. It does not necesarily go back into the past and regualte those times. That is what ex post facto means.
|
Sorry, I meant that regulation is not ex post facto, it cannot fix what has happened. My bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Not all regulations are bad. Enron is an example of what can happen when regualtions are taken off. Also the utility prices for electricity and gas service in developing areas like South America. When someone wants regulations taken off be very afraid. Look into who they are and why they want it. Usually it is not market oriented and is basically subjecting people to a monopoly on something they cant live without.
|
Monopolies only exist where there is no competition. The best way to limit competition, is to regulate an industry. Regulation always raises the price of entry, making it more costly for small players to emerge and challenge an established order. That is why most regulation is actually written by the industry, and not consumers or legislators. It's more profitable to limit competition through regulation (bang for the buck) than to compete in an open and free market.
Think about this. It's true.
Imagine how many fewer offers and products there would be if AM was regulated. Consider how many fewer AMs there would be if they had to get a license and perform industry specific reporting on their tactics for government oversight.
I'm sure one could make the argument,
but the industry would be safer and there would be less dirtbags and shady (no offense xmcp123) characters.
Perhaps. But at the cost of lower payouts (because the affiliate companies would have to hire staff to meet regulatory paperwork expectations, and potentially limit the number of programs they carry), more challenging entry into the industry, and rules that limit ways to generate leads?
Intervention has costs. If you believe in a free market (and I do), then you want the market to regulate, based upon consumer choices. It's the most efficient and moral model.
I certainly trust myself and all of you more than I trust politicians. Trusting in politicians is really dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
When the regulations are removed instead of lower prices and competition often there is price gouging and worse service.
|
More competition equals price gouging and worse service? This is counter-intuitive. I think we all know that more competition leads to innovation, product and service improvements and lower prices.
What you're repeating are fallacies that a lot of people seem to believe, but have no rational basis to believe. Normally, as soon as people bring up natural monopolies and such, my first instinct is to say, "show me one" but these days, I just shutdown on the conversation, because it's hard to argue rationally with people who repeat things without having thought them through themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
The whole system is corrupt as shit and that is why we are getting fucked no matter where we run. Vote them all out.
|
Now that is very true. Unfortunately, you can't vote them all out. The lobbyists have more money than you. Incumbents are rarely defeated, and the two party duopoly will not allow outside challenges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
There needs to be changes to the campaign finance and lobbyist laws so that special interests dont run DC.
|
Ron Paul's idea is better. Follow the Constitution. Then there is little money or power in Washington, and lobbyists have to lobby either 50 states, or 500 cities or 300 million consumers.
Historically, centralizing power and money attracts the worst the sort of vermin. There are thousands more laws on the books now than there were 100 years ago. And yet politicians and the political process is more corrupt than ever. Maybe the power to legislate over so much, and to hand out so much money in appropriations is the problem.
Maybe, instead of feeding a drug addict more heroin, hoping it will kill him, the heroin should be taken away.