Like the Canadian banks, banks that stuck to the business of basic banking and didn’t chase after the latest exotica from Wall Street like a dog chasing a chew toy, are just fine.
At a recent conference held here by the Indiana Bankers Association, attendees said it over and over: our business is plodding and boring and we would not have it any other way.
“Banking should not be exciting,” said Clay W. Ewing, president of retail financial services at German American Bancorp, a community bank in Jasper. “If banking gets exciting, there is something wrong with it.”
It is an ethos squarely at odds with the risk-addicted style of megabanks, like Citigroup and Bank of America, that trafficked in the subprime mortgages and complex financial products that helped drive the country into the grimmest recession in decades.
I was recently watching a documentary on the 1929 crash, and having lived through first-hand the dot-com crash in 2000, its clear that this bubble pattern is part of what we do in America.
I sure remember tv pundits like Larry Kudlow in 1999 talking about how the business paradigm had totally changed, and I even confess as I was personally in the middle of it making more money than my experience dictated, I bought in to some of it. But the problem with this downturn is that its one thing for stupid dotcoms with Hollywood celebs on their board of directors to flame out (ours had Dan Aykroyd and Jim Belushi!), its a whole other for a giant bank or brokerage to crater.
We can’t allow an industry like banking to get into as many areas as it did. I was in favor of the Clinton-era deregulation of the telecom industry and that just led to consolidation, ditto for the banks being deregulated. We have to balance between too much red tape and the free flow of capital, but the government has to be empowered and willing to be the bartender who cuts off the drinks way before our industries go swaggering out the door, fumbling for the car keys.
OW : “this bubble pattern is part of what we do in America.”
The “bubble pattern” is largely the result of the right wing ideology/cult of deregulation.
The Great Depression of the ’30’s was a direct result of an unregulated market.
The liberal regulations put into place after the Republican Great Depression were what kept America out of another Depression for over 50 years.
And then Republican Reagan was elected and helped con America into deregulating the Savings and Loans, which resulted in the Savings and Loan crisis.
And then Republicans started to deregulate everything they could get their hands on and now we’re dealing with the Republican Great Recession that’s only being kept from becoming a Second Republican Great Depression because of massive government infusions of cash (the “spender of last resort” as everyone else suddenly relearns to “save”).
Republicans are a mix of predatory con artists and innumerate cultists.
Republicans and their right wing ideology are NOT good for America.
Unless you are the con artist with Swiss bank accounts to hold the loot from your pretend Cayman Islands “business” that you are bilking out of Americans.
N-R…While I agree with portions of your essay, I think I must disagree with your thesis that the ‘bubble pattern’, so-called, is a right-wing phenomenon.
Risk-taking has been part of American culture since long before America was founded. Indeed, even the Jamestown pioneers and the Pilgrims were risk-takers/speculators, in that they were speculating on their chances of success and, therefore, survival in a ‘wild’ land.
This speculative mindset drove the Founders as they fought the British in 2 different wars, drove several gold rushes (Georgia, California, South Daktoa, Alaska/Canada), the railroad expansion, and, yes, the stock market leading into the Crash of 1929 (the first year of the *HOOVER* Administration, for our history-blind conservative friends).
While it may be, I don’t see convincing evidence to suggest that the ’something-for-nothing’ mindset of the Stock Speculators makes them inherently Conservative, either. Plenty of John and Jane Does, in all walks of life, lost life savings in the 1929 crash. Possibly, even the *same* folks may have lost money in the 2008 slo-mo crash, which, given the increased complexity of the current investing markets, makes it almost impossible to track exactly where a dollar is at a given moment in time (maybe they should apply Quantum Indeterminancy to Derivative Markets?).
What to me seems inherently Conservative, is the collection of predators swimming that sea of Green, taking advantage of all the saps and suckers wanting something for nothing….something that hasn’t changed since Preston Bush worked his banking legerdemain and helped finance those who tried overthrowing FDR during his first administration, and later American and European Nazis into the early years of WWII in Europe. Take a look at the ‘politics’ of the bank and investment-house CEOs…almost without exception they vote Republican, if they vote (they may not, if they feel their money provides greater security in outcomes).
So, it’s not the something-for-nothing suckers that are the evil behind deregulation, but the Banana Republican sharks, pirahnas, and Banana Spiders constantly on the prowl for the next big meal ticket
We’re always going to have Phil Gramms and Ben Nelsons to bolster tent sales
“Banking should not be exciting,”
That should be a t-shirt.
Duros–definitely…
K.I.S.S- Keep it simple stupid!
We have to balance between too much red tape and the free flow of capital, but the government has to be empowered and willing to be the bartender who cuts off the drinks way before our industries go swaggering out the door, fumbling for the car keys.
The implication being that government bureaucrats and politicians have a better handle on what private industry should be doing with their money than they do (otherwise how do you know when to cut off the drinks?). Yes, that makes sense.
When private industry gets out of hand, the government must have
–the regulations in place to determine when private industry is out of control
–the enforcement options to curb private excesses
–the political will to exercise both
Otherwise, you’re letting the drunk guy decide when enough is enough.
Corporate bureaucrats and executives have already screwed up beyond all common sense. Why are they inherently better than their government counterparts? Just because they’re not the government?
Private industry has proven time and again that it cannot police itself. Somebody else has to.
KC
Colin: The implication being that government bureaucrats and politicians have a better handle on what private industry should be doing with their money than they do (otherwise how do you know when to cut off the drinks?). Yes, that makes sense.
So let’s elect Republicans, who clearly never know when to cut off the drinks. Yes, that makes sense.
“We have to balance between too much red tape and the free flow of capital, but the government has to be empowered and willing to be the bartender who cuts off the drinks way before our industries go swaggering out the door, fumbling for the car keys”
Isn’t that what the Congressional Banking Oversight Committees were supposed to do?
So let’s elect Republicans, who clearly never know when to cut off the drinks. Yes, that makes sense.
As PJ O’Rourke said, Republicans make the case that government doesn’t work and then go out and prove it.
The better solution is not electing Republicans, but cutting government.
Private industry has proven time and again that it cannot police itself. Somebody else has to.
Actually the private sector does a brilliant job policing itself — bad companies go bankrupt. The exception, of course, being when idiot politicians bail them out.
Government meanwhile has proven that it is incapable of running itself. Medicare is underfunded by trillions with social security headed for a similar reckoning. Government-run schools have typically inferior performance to privately run institutions. Amtrak loses billions. The USPS loses money and can’t even maintain their stamp vending machines. The latest big idea in public housing is tearing it down. urban renewal campaigns messed up many of our cities. Freddie and Fannie lose money and are wracked by scandal. Agriculture subsidies and a bigger budget for the Ag department correspond with a decline in family farms.
And the national debt continues to spiral.
Government has the opposite of the Midas touch, everything it comes in contact with turns to crap.
The implication being that government bureaucrats and politicians have a better handle on what private industry should be doing with their money than they do (otherwise how do you know when to cut off the drinks?).
Brilliant. Bloody brilliant. Let’s give the thieves the keys to the vault again, because it worked out so well last time.
Colin: The implication being that government bureaucrats and politicians have a better handle on what private industry should be doing with their money than they do (otherwise how do you know when to cut off the drinks?)
To continue the bartender analogy, Who is better able to judge when someone is drunk, the guy slurring his words when he calls for a fifth round or the sober bartender?
Government bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be running the company, but they should set down rules that provide limits to what businesses can do.
Experience repeatedly shows that, when unregulated, private industry is no more capable of controlling its excesses than the guy drooling at the end of the bar.
>Government bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be running the company, but they should set down rules that provide limits to what businesses can do.
Interesting. Let’s say a bunch of companies are all doing this new thing that is supposed to make them a bunch of money, but it is risky.
Where will you find these magical government bureaucrats that can a. assess better than said companies how risky the new enterprise is? b. put rules into place that will prevent the companies from engaging in the truly dangerous parts of this enterprise (that apparently only these bureaucrats can see)*without* discouraging risk taking in general? c. won’t be influenced by said companies though self interested argument or outright bribery and corruption?
You seem to have an awful lot of faith that there exists some kind of disinterested and dispassionate bureaucrat that can wave the magic wand of “regulation” and make everything better.
As PJ O’Rourke said, Republicans make the case that government doesn’t work and then go out and prove it.
The better solution is not electing Republicans, but cutting government.
So wait, you’re saying that when people purposefully do a bad job, the job can’t be done right? Aren’t you missing a few steps there?
The USPS loses money and can’t even maintain their stamp vending machines.
USPS has been private for years now.
Freddie and Fannie lose money and are wracked by scandal.
So is Freddie and Fannie.
Government has the opposite of the Midas touch, everything it comes in contact with turns to crap.
If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to Dubai? Just think, in a month, you can go from being a big-shot to sucking dicks in the back of an Olive Garden.
Southern Quaker said: Let’s give the thieves the keys to the vault again, because it worked out so well last time.
Who are the ‘thieves’ and what ‘vault’ did they have the keys to???
Shall I color you clueless?
“Colin”, make a list of what parts of the government you would cut.
The military? MRAPs? PTSD funding? Veteran’s health care?
Military bases on foreign soil? Weapons contracts?
The surveillance programs? The torture prisons?
Social security? Medicare? Drug benefits?
Schools funding? College grants? College loans?
Science research funding? Medical research funding?
Clearly the Republicans were struck with a case of ‘convenient amnesia’ during the years the were in charge of all three branches of government and couldn’t remember to cut any “government” and instead GREW the size of government and it’s spending enormously.
The truth is that was the Republican’s plan: Grow Government.
It’s the “Two Santa Clause Theory” of “Republican “Economics”"
Republicans expanded government spending even while cutting taxes, which, of course, exploded the US debt.
Which was the Republican “PLAN”.
Probably the funniest Republican growth of government was the drug prescription plan that was explicitly written to hand the drug companies billions of taxpayer dollars without negotiation.
The Republican, Tauzin, who wrote the law to hand the drug companies billions in un-negotiated taxpayer dollars immediately turned around and got a high-paying job as a lobbyist for the drug companies.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Tauzin+drug+benefits
The unfunniest Republican growths of government were the trillion dollar+ Iraq War Lie, the unlawful surveillance programs, and the multi-trillions that Republican Bush pushed out the back door of the Fed to the Banksters.
Your mileage may vary.
Who is better able to judge when someone is drunk, the guy slurring his words when he calls for a fifth round or the sober bartender?
Except the notion that the government is a sober bartender is laughable. In the housing mess they were fanning the flames with Fannie and Freddie buying up mortgages and the Fed offering cheap money.
Government has the opposite of the Midas touch, everything it comes in contact with turns to crap.
Really? Everything? Everything?
So wait, you’re saying that when people purposefully do a bad job, the job can’t be done right? Aren’t you missing a few steps there?
No, because Democrats show that they are no better either.
USPS has been private for years now.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government…
So is Freddie and Fannie.
WTF? This doesn’t even make sense.
If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to Dubai? Just think, in a month, you can go from being a big-shot to sucking dicks in the back of an Olive Garden.
More incoherence. You confuse a love of country with a love of government.
“Banks That Just Did Banking Are Okay ”
Not really…the banks that didn’t take excessive risk are being punished by the FDIC in the form of higher insurance premiums.
“At DeMotte [State Bank, an 11-branch operation in the northwest part of Indiana, Bank President] Mr. Goetz is bracing for a steep increase in a crucial overhead cost: the bill from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is basically an insurance fund underwritten by banks.
Last year, DeMotte paid $42,000 into the fund. This year, because of failures in other parts of the country and particularly among national banks, that sum will rise to $500,000 or more.
“Isn’t that the American way?” he says, folding his arms. “Whoever is left standing, whoever was prudent, is always the one who has to pick up the pieces.”
Clearly the Republicans were struck with a case of ‘convenient amnesia’ during the years the were in charge of all three branches of government and couldn’t remember to cut any “government” and instead GREW the size of government and it’s spending enormously.
The truth is that was the Republican’s plan: Grow Government.
You’re right, Republicans are idiots and hypocrites. We should cut government so they won’t have so much power next time they get into office. Unfortunately Obama demonstrates no inkling whatsoever to do this.
By the way, I will note that the NY Times article is mostly about small bank execs trying to get the message out that they are OK, don’t need TARP and are not to be confused with the Citibanks of the world because they are scared of idiot politicians that might think otherwise.
But those same politicians should have more oversight of them. Right.
Really? Everything? Everything?
I dunno, why don’t you make me a list of all the things it does well and maybe I will reconsider. Shouldn’t take you very long.
“Haplo9″ you seem to have an awful lot of faith in sociopathic predators who would sell me poison and then skip out for Dubai while hiding the loot of their Cayman Islands “business” in secret Swiss bank accounts.
“Haplo9″ you seem to have an awful lot of contempt for the American Democratic Republic of “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity[.]”
“Haplo9″, are you one of Republican John McCain foreign lobbyists?
Colin, you say that government often fails, and therefore it needs to be cut. Yet every attempt at shrinking government seems to have failed.
Even if the ideal solution is smaller government, it will never happen. Maybe it makes more sense to try to get a government that works more often, despite its largeness.
More fun…
“The Office of Management and Budget also projected today in its budget analysis for fiscal 2010 that the companies, which have received or requested $78.8 billion in aid since their federal takeover in September, will need at least $92.2 billion more. The Treasury Department doubled an emergency capital commitment for each company in February to $200 billion. The 2010 fiscal year ends Sept. 30, 2010.”
5 years ago –
“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Haplo9: “Interesting. Let’s say a bunch of companies are all doing this new thing that is supposed to make them a bunch of money, but it is risky.
Where will you find these magical government bureaucrats that can a. assess better than said companies how risky the new enterprise is? [etc...]”
So are you saying there should be no regulation of any company ever? That government (we) should just sit back and trust completely to the company to not take amazing risks and/or completely disregard potential consequences of their activities?
See, I can play the “let’s talk about unrealistic extremes”, too.
I dunno, why don’t you make me a list of all the things it does well and maybe I will reconsider. Shouldn’t take you very long.
Why don’t you tell us about what an awesome, rugged individualist you are. I’m guessing you didn’t bootstrap your way to self-proclaimed libertarianism.
News .. lost me. I think the sum of what he says is I’m a bad person. Or something.
>Colin, you say that government often fails, and therefore it needs to be cut. Yet every attempt at shrinking government seems to have failed.
Agreed. It isn’t surprising that it is difficult to reduce the size and power of government though. After all, which politicians of either party would willingly vote to reduce their own power?
>Even if the ideal solution is smaller government, it will never happen. Maybe it makes more sense to try to get a government that works more often, despite its largeness.
Define “works”. You might think that a government that takes money from other people and gives it to you is a government that “works”, but the people from whom it is taken might not agree..
Colin, you say that government often fails, and therefore it needs to be cut. Yet every attempt at shrinking government seems to have failed.
This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, some of our greatest public policy successes have come from cutting government.
One example is welfare reform, where a cut in benefits resulted in more employment. This is widely regarded as an unqualified success.
On free trade NAFTA, which removed government barriers, has been a success, with trade doubling between the US and Mexico. Trucking and airline deregulation have been successes, resulting in more choice and lower prices. The end of prohibition was a success.
The common thread there is the expansion of freedom, be it personal or economic.
Why don’t you tell us about what an awesome, rugged individualist you are. I’m guessing you didn’t bootstrap your way to self-proclaimed libertarianism.
I’m guessing you’re really struggling putting together that list.
Since “Colin” doesn’t like America’s democratic republican, he should try Somalia’s Libertarian Paradise.
That’s a VERY funny video.
>So are you saying there should be no regulation of any company ever?
I am saying that, at best, regulation is going to be reactive to something that has been seen before. It isn’t going to save you from the newest disaster. At worst, regulation discourages risk taking, innovation, and invites corruption and incestuous business-to-government relationships. The point being that your notion that regulation will fix everything (and thus Republicans are somehow to blame for their “culture of deregulation”) is wishful thinking.
>That government (we) should just sit back and trust completely to the company to not take amazing risks and/or completely disregard potential consequences of their activities?
You mean consequences like.. losing money? Going out of business?
Where does “trust” even enter into this though? You seem to imagine that by virtue of being in business, you should have a say in how a business is run, even if you have nothing to do with the company. Why?
“Colin”: “a list of all the things it [government] does well” … “Shouldn’t take you very long.”
Actually it would take a long time but, you’re right, I should start a list and have it handy for folks like yourself.
The short list:
Government minimizes the possibility that people like you, “Colin”, can poison my water, air, and food.
Government minimizes the possibility you can sell me a product that blows up in my face.
Government makes it possible for my half-witted neighbors to send their kids to a reasonably decent school, which, if nothing else, keeps them usefully occupied and not roaming the streets while they’re parents are working to pay off the almost unaffordable adjustable rate mortgage that some sociopath suckered them into.
Government lets me call 911 and have a Cop or a Fire Engine or an Ambulance show up in an EMERGENCY in about the same time as the pizza delivery place down the street can deliver a pizza.
Government provides me a reasonable assurance that our nation has a military that will protect US.
Government makes it possible to send multiple pieces of paper anywhere in the nation for less than the price of a candy bar.
Government makes sure that I have reasonable roads to drive to work on.
Government made sure the empty red states had “rural electrification.”
MY American government provides me the opportunity to vote out or vote into office nearly anyone I want to represent me.
MY American government allows me the opportunity to run for office if I were inclined.
MY American government is set up so that I can support the growing number of laws needed to prevent sociopaths like yourself, “Colin”, from robbing me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, and my country because you figured out a way of wriggling through the fine print of all the other laws to still steal “legally” because nobody thought that there was someone that actually needed a law to prevent you and your ilk from doing all of the nefarious things that have been done.
The biggest reason I support a strong government is to protect me from people like YOU, “Colin,” you are a con artist, a liar, and a predator.
In a way, government is ultimately what protects you, as well.
Without government, con artists and liars and predators like yourself would have been stripped, beaten, and run out of the country by the true “conservatives”.
“Colin,” you believe that you can con American’s into stripping themselves of the laws that protect them from you but leave in place the laws that protect you from them.
Your con has worked for over 30 years so I can understand your presumption that it will continue to work.
Perhaps whatever is left of your degraded conscience will understand if I hope that your con has lost most of it’s influence.
Oh, and for the record, I’m an independent with a conservative streak with a very healthy understanding of “libertarianism”. My views don’t represent “liberals” or “liberalism”.
“Haplo9″: “… you should have a say in how a business is run, even if you have nothing to do with the company. Why?”
Because sociopaths like yourself, “Haplo9″, poisoned my countries food, water, air, and soil, and then sold my neighbors kids poisonous lead painted toys.
Sociopaths like yourself also conned my innumerate neighbors into taking on unaffordable adjustable rate mortgages, and as much as you want to “blame the victim” for the actions of sociopathic predators, my entire community is now paying the price in reduced home values and untended vacated properties because there weren’t protections to keep the sociopaths from preying on innumerate fools.
Wow, and I thought some of News’s comments were satire! Tell me, News, what would your perfect country be like? I’m guessing it would be one where:
Nobody takes any risks. Might hurt someone, somewhere. Your risk taking will be second guessed by other people anyway, whose level of experience and competence is on the order of someone like News Reference, who is an armchair quarterbacking, “my hindsight is perfect” huckster of the highest order.
Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. You weren’t forced to accept a loan that you didn’t have much of a chance of repaying, and you accepted anyway? Someone else’s fault!
The state would have a lot of power in your country News, though I’m guessing you’d like it that way. (As long as the “right” people were controlling it, of course.)
Well, at least I can safely put your commentary into the same level of seriousness as ed and CSS. Watch out for all those sociopaths News! They are everywhere!
Look, “Haplo9″, I understand that “your perfect [right wing] country” is one where companies can pollute the air, water, soil, and sell me poisoned food without any consequences.
In “your perfect [right wing] country”, “Haplo9″, you could sell my neighbors kids poisoned toys without any consequences.
And in “your perfect [right wing] country”, “Haplo9″, usury is legal.
And it’s true, in my “perfect country” you and the corporations you represent wouldn’t be allowed to poison the air, water, soil, or sell me poisoned food. You wouldn’t be allowed to sell my neighbors kids poisoned toys. And you wouldn’t be able practice usury. And those are just the bare minimum things my “perfect country” would demand.
Clearly you and “Colin” and most of the other right wing trolls that show up here disagree with me.
Note to all: disagreeing with News (even if you haven’t even mentioned these subjects) means that you favor:
unrestricted pollution
being able to sell poisoned (um, containing lead, I take it?) toys to kids without consequences
What other terrible things am I in favor of, oh mind reader?
And I have to ask: usury! otherwise known as the charging of interest for loaning money. You think that should be illegal News? Care to give your reasoning?
WTF? This doesn’t even make sense.
F&F was a private corperation. I’m sorry that you don’t understand English.
Except the notion that the government is a sober bartender is laughable. In the housing mess they were fanning the flames with Fannie and Freddie buying up mortgages and the Fed offering cheap money.
Again, here’s an offer. Congressional Democrats can take blame for F&F, while the private industry takes blame for the rest. Deal?
So far, no takers.
More incoherence.
TranslatioN: “I don’t even know where Dubai IS.”
Government has the opposite of the Midas touch, everything it comes in contact with turns to crap.
You adolescent Ayn Randies make it soeasy.
Speaking of adolescents ed – you still haven’t told us your age. Consider this another invitation.
“Haplo9″, you are saying government regulating business is NOT okay.
Did I misunderstand that?
You clearly indicated disgust at even the idea of government overseeing business.
Let’s cut to the point.
Why should I trust you? I don’t know you. And if I did know you I’d trust you even less than a stranger (because you’ve already outed yourself with what you’ve written here).
Unregulated corporations have poisoned the water, air, soil, and food.
Unregulated corporations sold lead painted poisonous toys to children.
And what do you support? Unregulated corporations.
“Haplo9″ even pulls the “Colin” and “Jay Tea” con artist trick of redefining words to meet their right wing fantasy world.
USURY is “1 archaic: interest 2: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; esp: the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates 3: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specif: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money”
Clearly in “Haplo9’s” right wing fantasy world only the ARCHAIC definition applies.
Any non-innumerate, reasonably educated, fiscal conservative knows that “USURY” is typically and ESPECIALLY defined as: the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates 3: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specif: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money”
So all of you reading this wondering what the hell gives the credit card companies the “right” to arbitrarily double your interest rate, well, it’s right wing economic theorists like “Haplo9″ who changed the law to benefit the credit card companies while screwing nearly every citizen that uses a credit card.
And as for mind reading, let me guess, “Haplo9″, would you also be in favor of the euphemistically mislabeled “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” aka: TORTURE?
If you are at least against TORTURE, and only for USURY than perhaps you aren’t a complete sociopath, you are just unconscionable.
Colin: On free trade NAFTA, which removed government barriers, has been a success, with trade doubling between the US and Mexico.
If your only criteria for success is increase in trade.
Trucking and airline deregulation have been successes, resulting in more choice and lower prices. The end of prohibition was a success.
Yet presumably you’re comfortable letting the government regulate the roads the trucks drive on. Or regulate air travel safety. But when it comes to letting the government make the rules related to the financial industry you think they can’t handle it?
The common thread there is the expansion of freedom, be it personal or economic.
Financial institutions are not individuals, and their actions can have consequences beyond themselves, both good and bad. The point of regulating them is to keep the bad consequences to a minimum.
Haplo9: The point being that your notion that regulation will fix everything (and thus Republicans are somehow to blame for their “culture of deregulation”) is wishful thinking.
That’s the second time you’ve said that so, please, show me exactly where I said “regulation will fix everything”. Or that Republicans are to blame.
You falsely claim I’ve said something extreme so that you can then make a “your extreme view is so clearly wrong” type response.
Make a reasoned response to what I did say or STFU.
You mean consequences like.. losing money? Going out of business?
SDM: That government (we) should just sit back and trust completely to the company to not take amazing risks and/or completely disregard potential consequences of their activities?
Haplo9: You mean consequences like.. losing money? Going out of business?
No, I mean consequences like throwing toxic waste into rivers, gambling away pension funds on short term and very risky ventures, or any of a host of other things private businesses have done when left to police themselves.
You seem to imagine that by virtue of being in business, you should have a say in how a business is run, even if you have nothing to do with the company.
And we’re back to my first comment: You’re pulling that interpretation out of your ass.
“ed’s” graphic:
Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac.
I’d like to see what source is used to create the graph but as I interpret it:
Out of a teetering $60 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATE INDUSTRY CATASTROPHE in the form of the right wing’s “Unregulated Credit Default Swap Market” represented in RED, that tiny BLUE sliver represents the government’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portion.
PRIVATE BANKS gambled with money they didn’t have, they “insured” themselves through private “insurance” companies, primarily AIG, that couldn’t pay, and now the only thing keeping them afloat is government taxpayer dollars.
Colin: “The USPS loses money and can’t even maintain their stamp vending machines.”
And yet Canada Post continues to show profits.
Maybe it’s not governments that are the problem, but Americans.
You’ve been told ‘Government is not the solution, it is the problem!’ so often that you believe it is gospel, and not some bullshit political talking point.
The simple fact is, Canada has more regulations, and the Canadian banking systems is the strongest in the world. Now, there’s the correlation / causation problem here; however, we can work under the assumption that one lead to the other, or we can pretend regulations have no effect. In which case, the only other conclusion is… Canadians are better than Americans.
Which do you prefer?
Doh. That graph was “Zython’s” contribution.
“ed” offered the YouTube video clip to Monty Python’s Life of Brien bit where they discussed “What have the Romans ever done for us”?
asides from the aqueducts, the sanitation, the roads, the irrigation, medicine, education, wine, public baths, safe streets, public order and public health
and peace
…
yup. clearly gubmint is the problem.
>“Haplo9″, you are saying government regulating business is NOT okay. Did I misunderstand that?
Yep – in fact, I don’t know that you’ll find many people that will out and out claim that any and all government regulation of business is bad. Speaking for myself, I think it’s useful to point out that regulation, as an approach, has some significant drawbacks that I mentioned above – such that regulation can destroy or otherwise ruin a valuable industry. Many people of the leftie persuasion seem to think that additional regulations have no real world cost, and don’t come with drawbacks. There is quite a bit of difference between saying “no regulations anywhere, ever!” and saying “you have to watch out for x, y, and z when you think about enacting regulations.”
>Why should I trust you? I don’t know you. And if I did know you I’d trust you even less than a stranger (because you’ve already outed yourself with what you’ve written here).
While irrelevant, I’d point out that you’ve already “outed” yourself as an authoritarian – willing to reduce freedom in service of whatever crusade you happen to be on. Which person is more trustworthy, someone who is authoritarian, or someone who wants to make a buck? I know which one I’d trust more – at least I can predict what the buck-maker is going to do.
>Unregulated corporations have poisoned the water, air, soil, and food.
Really? I haven’t died yet from poison in any of those things. Weird. Speaking of which, I didn’t know that industries that emit pollutants are unregulated. Or is that not what you are implying? Weird that regulation doesn’t just make everything better, huh? Could it be that smart regulation has to be able to strike a balance between positive and negative externalities? No way!
>“Haplo9″ even pulls the “Colin” and “Jay Tea” con artist trick of redefining words to meet their right wing fantasy world. USURY is “1 archaic: interest 2: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; esp: the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates 3: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specif: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money” Clearly in “Haplo9’s” right wing fantasy world only the ARCHAIC definition applies.
Er – wouldn’t “redefining” a word mean changing its defintion to something that has no reasonable basis, as opposed to “using the definition that News Reference doesn’t like”? I’m glad to hear you aren’t full on crazy though. Just partly:
>So all of you reading this wondering what the hell gives the credit card companies the “right” to arbitrarily double your interest rate, well, it’s right wing economic theorists like “Haplo9″ who changed the law to benefit the credit card companies while screwing nearly every citizen that uses a credit card.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that credit card companies can double your interest rate because you signed a contract that said they could do so. Or did you not read the contract? Tell me News – what defines an interest rate as usurious? Is it 5%? 10%? How does one as enlightened as you tell? As you are no doubt aware, lenders use interest rates to mitigate against two main risks, among others: the risk that the lendee won’t pay, and the risk that inflation will reduce the actual value of the dollars they are being paid back. If you were a terrible risk because you regularly failed to pay a lender back, would a high interest rate still be usurious in your bizarro world? Just curious how you square this whole usury thing with, you know, reality.
>And as for mind reading, let me guess, “Haplo9″, would you also be in favor of the euphemistically mislabeled “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” aka: TORTURE?
How is one in “favor” of EIT? Would I use EIT techniques under the right (well, the wrong) circumstances? Sure would. I bet you would to. I’ll give you this one though – you are 1 for 3!
I like this story, though it is pretty obvious.
Why wouldn’t they be? It’s kind of like Wired reported two years ago. Keep it simple, Stupid.
I think the real story looking forward however is what is going to happen with all these out of work real estate brokers and agents? They are still out there scamming folks. They are just moving into the FHA programs and loan modification scams. That is where the real watchdog reporting should be. It’s not that people are so stupid they need to be protected from themselves, but they kind of are.
Unless you have exceptional credit and a really solid down payment from now on, you will not be able to get a house — unless through the FHA. The right-wingers blamed these guys for the entire meltdown and that was just B.S. There were just as many real estate speculators defaulting as there were working people defaulting.
So, can the market really recover with so many people who are now not eligible for financing? If you add the foreclosures, the layoffs and the other collateral financial stress folks are feeling now, I just don’t think there will be enough eligible buyers out there.
Haplo9: “Tell me, News, what would your perfect country be like? I’m guessing it would be one where: Nobody takes any risks. [and blah blah blah]”
And he’s at it again. Nobody is saying everything should be regulated and government should interfere with the smallest aspects of every business. News Ref spells out a number of places where reasonable government regulation provides for the general welfare and, since you clearly can’t provide a reasoned rebuttal, you fall back on your favorite kindergarten-level cry.
Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions.
And that’s part of your argument AGAINST regulation?
Note to all: disagreeing with News (even if you haven’t even mentioned these subjects) means that you favor:
unrestricted pollution
being able to sell poisoned (um, containing lead, I take it?) toys
Note to all: disagreeing with Haplo (even if you haven’t ever said so) means that you favor:
complete regulation of everything ever
Oh, you’re right, Haplo. This putting-words-in-people’s-mouths-and-then-criticizing-them-for-what-you-just-made-up game IS fun!
>That’s the second time you’ve said that so, please, show me exactly where I said “regulation will fix everything”. Or that Republicans are to blame.
I haven’t exactly seen you dissenting from the repeated Dem and Oliver line on the “Republican culture of deregulation”, but fair enough. Can you then point out where I said that all regulation is bad?
>You falsely claim I’ve said something extreme so that you can then make a “your extreme view is so clearly wrong” type response. Make a reasoned response to what I did say or STFU.
Oh dear god, spare me the vapors. You said this:
>Government bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be running the company, but they should set down rules that provide limits to what businesses can do.
And I asked you to tell me how you that would work, given what I consider to be the serious drawbacks of regulation. You haven’t been interested in going there thus far.
>And we’re back to my first comment: You’re pulling that interpretation out of your ass.
Sean, you said quite clearly that bureaucrats and the government shouldn’t run the company, but should be involved in rulemaking for the company. I’m asking you to enunciate how that would work – you’ve made a (actually, I should say “make”, as this is kind of your MO) (vague) policy pronouncement and then when asked to get more specific about how it would work, you get hussy. Well, put up or shut up.
Haplo9: “I know which one I’d trust more – at least I can predict what the buck-maker is going to do.
Yeah. They’re going to do whatever they can to make as much money for themselves as possible, with little regard for the consequences.
Well, that should be fun for the rest of us who happen to live downstream of the factory.
>Unregulated corporations have poisoned the water, air, soil, and food.
Really? I haven’t died yet from poison in any of those things. Weird.
And I haven’t died in a terror attack on my office building. Guess those things don’t actually happen either. Weird that people would think they have.
Could it be that smart regulation has to be able to strike a balance between positive and negative externalities? No way!
And where here has anyone said otherwise. You keep trying to claim you’re the only one to recognize there has to be a balance but everyone else (teh lefties! Ooh, spooky bogeymen!) argues only for extensive, absolute regulation of everything. You keep saying others aren’t seeing reality while failing to see it yourself.
If you were a terrible risk because you regularly failed to pay a lender back, would a high interest rate still be usurious in your bizarro world?
If you were a terrible risk because you regularly failed to pay a lender back, then in a reasonable world the bank wouldn’t issue you a credit card instead. Instead, in your bizarro world, they take the unwarranted risk becuase they get to cover the near-inevitable loss by hitting up low-risk customers with higher rates and fees and teh government for a bailout.
>And he’s at it again. Nobody is saying everything should be regulated and government should interfere with the smallest aspects of every business.
Actually, I don’t think News is too far from that position, which is why I was making fun of him. Reading through the thread though, Sean, you aren’t being very reasonable – with the exception of News, my pushback has been, “I don’t think regulation is nearly as effective and valuable as you seem to think it is” – not, “You want 100% regulation of everything.” as you seem to want it to be.
>And where here has anyone said otherwise. You keep trying to claim you’re the only one to recognize there has to be a balance but everyone else (teh lefties! Ooh, spooky bogeymen!) argues only for extensive, absolute regulation of everything. You keep saying others aren’t seeing reality while failing to see it yourself.
.. Sean, no-one has said anything about these things, you included. No, I’m not dumb enough to think I’m the only one to think about them. (Exception of News though, his comments lead to believe he is pretty far out there.) Seriously, can you not conceive a reason I might bring them up? You know, maybe to learn about other people’s opinions about them? To get your opinion on why it seems like I find the drawbacks of regulation greater than you seem to. The drawbacks of regulation strike me as important aspect of regulation in general, and I’ve always been curious as to why people to my left seem to like regulation more – do I consider the drawbacks greater than they do? Is there some benefit that they value more than I do?
Or do you just not care to get into such specifics?
Haplo9: “I haven’t exactly seen you dissenting from the repeated Dem and Oliver line on the “Republican culture of deregulation”, but fair enough.
You didn’t see me not doing something so you assume that I did it? Yeah, glad you decided to re-think that one.
Can you then point out where I said that all regulation is bad?
In your first post. When I pointed out that “Government bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be running the company, but they should set down rules that provide limits to what businesses can do.” you responded by rejecting the idea of regulation outright with your “magical government bureaucrats” “that can wave the magic wand of “regulation” and make everything better.”
Granted, you didn’t say it outright preferring instead to instantly slide into your favored pasttime of misrepresenting what I said as being something extreme rather than something quite close to the view you eventually expressed yourself, but your utter dismissal of the idea of regulation was pretty obvious.
Sean, you said quite clearly that bureaucrats and the government shouldn’t run the company, but should be involved in rulemaking for the company.
Yes to the first part, no to the second. I said they should “set down rules that provide limits to what businesses can do”. Businesses, not “the company”. Industry in general, not a particular company. It’s what government has been doing for decades and is what’s cleaned the air and recalled dangerous products and kept the food supply from having more mad cow scares that it has.
Haplo9: “Many people of the leftie persuasion seem to think that additional regulations have no real world cost, and don’t come with drawbacks.”
Really? Many on the left say this. I guess that means you can give us quotes.
You see, we can give plenty of quotes of people on the right who think more deregulation is needed to fix the problems. But I don’t think you can give quote by people on the right who think that industries should be choked by regulations till they collapse.
>If you were a terrible risk because you regularly failed to pay a lender back, then in a reasonable world the bank wouldn’t issue you a credit card instead.
Really? What if the lendee really wanted it? Would you prefer they go to a loan shark instead? I don’t see how you are likely to deny credit to someone who is determined to get it.
>Instead, in your bizarro world, they take the unwarranted risk becuase they get to cover the near-inevitable loss by hitting up low-risk customers with higher rates and fees and teh government for a bailout.
Unwarranted as decided upon after the fact, you mean? The whole point of risk is that you don’t know the outcome in advance, so I don’t quite see how you can claim a loan is a “near-inevitable” loss. If there was any doubt as to receiving a government bailout, who would sign up for a inevitable loss? As to bailouts, I certainly agree that they are bad, because of the nasty incentives (like the one you mentioned) they generate. It just seems unlikely to me that major lenders could reasonably assume bailouts would occur. They haven’t exactly been regular occurrences.
>Granted, you didn’t say it outright preferring instead to instantly slide into your favored pasttime of misrepresenting what I said as being something extreme rather than something quite close to the view you eventually expressed yourself, but your utter dismissal of the idea of regulation was pretty obvious.
Sean, if you’re going to get exercised about my making assumptions about what you mean when you say something, don’t do the same thing to me:
>but your utter dismissal of the idea of regulation was pretty obvious.
You’ve had numerous opportunities to clarify what you mean, but you’d rather play the martyr. Come off your high horse.
Or do you just not care to get into such specifics?
OK. To be very specific:
PUBLIC LAW 110–314
86 Stat. 816 (1972)
Pub.L. 107-155
15 USC (C. 53) 2601-2692
15 U.S.C. § 78a
Most all of which have been referred to in this thread already.
>Or do you just not care to get into such specifics?
OK. To be very specific:
PUBLIC LAW 110–314
86 Stat. 816 (1972)
Pub.L. 107-155
15 USC (C. 53) 2601-2692
15 U.S.C. § 78a
Um, ok. I’ll take that as a “I don’t want to talk about this anymore.” Citing regulations is a bit different than discussing the philosophy behind them.
“Government has the opposite of the Midas touch, everything it comes in contact with turns to crap.”
Here’s a counter example from a Nobel Prize winning economist who has a knack for getting really important shit right:
But maybe we’d be better off listening to self-styled rugged individualists like our “Colin.”
Haplo9: Really? What if the lendee really wanted it? Would you prefer they go to a loan shark instead? I don’t see how you are likely to deny credit to someone who is determined to get it.
Well, you have a brief bout with reasonableness there but I see it’s passed.
Are you fucking kidding me? Is that really your reasoning? Show me one bank, anywhere, that offers the explanation “We issued credit cards to high risk peolpe because we didn’t want them going to laon sharks.” Or “Well, if we didn’t make the high risk stupid loan someone else would have.”
Seriously, is that the caliber of decision making you’re advocating for?
Simply, wow.
Unwarranted as decided upon after the fact, you mean? The whole point of risk is that you don’t know the outcome in advance, so I don’t quite see how you can claim a loan is a “near-inevitable” loss.
Unwarranted as determined before the fact because the level of risk has been evaluated and found to be too high. Of course you don’t know the outcome for certain in advance. That’s why it’s called “risk”. And analyzing and evaluating risk is part of what banks are supposed to do so that they then avoid things where the risk is to high.
Are you suggesting that because a bank can’t know for certain that a loan will fail, that they should make it anyway?
Tell you what, while you’re looking for a bank that proclaims “Better we do something stupid than let our competitors do it.” see if you can also find one that says “We’ve no idea of how to classify different levels of risk.”
Right winger “Haplo9″ starts off demeaning the government of We the People by dismissing it as “magical government bureaucrats” and only after being confronted for taking an absurd and offensive position does he suddenly decide that he was misunderstood and even then only is able to concede that “regulation, as an approach, has some significant drawbacks”.
Which regulations, “Haplo9″? The regulations that prevent big companies from poisoning the air, water, soil, or food? The regulations that prevent corporations from selling products that blow up in the faces of consumers?
It’s true, those “regulations” have the “drawbacks” of forcing corporations to NOT pollute the air, water, soil, food supply, or sell products that blow up.
As you point out, that’s a “real world cost” to those corporations.
The reality is that the “real world cost” is even greater when those corporations pollute the air, water, soil, and food supply.
It’s called “externalizing costs” and is essential to right wing business practices and the right wing’s toxic economic theories.
It’s ironic that “Haplo9″ asserts that “regulation can destroy or otherwise ruin a valuable industry” considering that deregulation came near to destroying the global financial system and has damaged America’s financial system far worse than many are yet ready to recognize. The only thing that’s kept the global financial system from completely ‘cratering’ has been the concerted efforts of governments all over the world.
Even “Haplo9’s” concession that regulations are essential is filled with slippery lawyeristic nonsense.
Maybe that kind of legal chicanery might fly in front of activist right wing judges but Judge Judy wouldn’t have any patience for your legalistic bullshit, “Haplo9″.
“authoritarian” see:
http://google.com/search?q=right+wing+authoritarian+personality+types
Considering the right wing is riddled with authoritarian personality types it’s useful for left wingers to recognize what they are truly dealing with.
What’s sad is that the right wing has been corrupted at the top and an entire group of people have fallen in line behind a very sick and very corrupt magical belief system that has repudiated science, evidence, logic, and as of this month, even empathy.
“Haplo9″ decides that since they haven’t “died yet from poison” then concerns about pollution is “Weird.”
For those reading, lead poisoning, the kind children can get from licking lead painted toys, can take decades to have an observable effects. So “Haplo9″ could sell every kid in your state lead painted toys, then skip out of the country for Dubai with their loot and never look back.
20 years later those lead paint poisoned kids grow up a little dumber and a little more aggressive. So while you are dealing with dumb, aggressive neighbors, “Haplo9″ is tanning themselves on the beaches of Dubai.
In “Haplo9’s” world this is called making “a buck” and we should “trust” them because having rules that would prevent him from making “a buck” is “authoritarian”.
In right winger “Haplo9’s” world, “industries that emit pollutants” have both “positive and negative externalities”, the “positive” externality in the lead painted toys example, which actually happened in 2008, is that the companies that sold lead painted toys to children were able to cut their manufacturing costs and make a larger profit.
The “negative externalities” were exposing children to a toxic poison that is correlated to retardation and aggressiveness.
That’s not “Haplo9’s” problem. “Haplo9″ is here representing the “positive” externality of making “a buck”.
“Haplo9″ concludes by defending unconscionable and exorbitant interest rates because, and this is where it’s almost funny, “the contract” says it’s okay.
NO.
GOVERNMENT IS THE ENFORCER OF THE CONTRACT.
CITIZENS ARE THE ENFORCERS OF WHAT’S ENFORCEABLE BY GOVERNMENT.
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, CONTRACTS DO NOT EXIST.
Without government, the only way to enforce “the contract” is by having the bigger guns.
This is the part of the Ayn Rand sociopath cult that really is particularly crazy. While some delusional Libertarians think that they have enough guns to enforce “the contract”, the more rational Libertarians recognize that enforcement of “the contract” requires a powerful government.
Libertarians believe absolutely in government. Libertarians are some of the worst authoritarians on the planet. At least as far as “the contract” favors them.
Libertarians are lawyers without consciences.
Libertarians expect absolute obedience (authoritarianism) to “the contract” even while simultaneously pissing on the “government” which is essential in enforcing compliance with “the contract”.
Libertarianism is obscene Orwellian doublethink.
What’s particularly sick about “Haplo9’s” defense of unconscionable interest rates is that BANKS MADE LOANS KNOWING THAT LOANEES COULDN’T PAY THOSE LOANS OFF.
That was the biggest con of the whole financial bubble. Banks knowingly made bad loans then handed the bad loans to fraudulent credit ratings agencies that sprinkled magic market libertarian faerie dust on those bad loans and then falsely asserted they were TRIPLE AAA investment opportunities.
Then fraudulent banksters sold off those bad loans so that the originator of the bad loans made their “buck” and headed for the exits like rats from a sinking ship.
And to top off “Haplo9″ unconscionable duplicity, they confess that they are a torture advocate and would be comfortable committing war crimes.
Torture and authoritarianism are incestuously entwined, “Haplo9″.
Perhaps you should think about some quiet time to reconsider your warped value system.
Of course that assumes that someone who is a torture advocate, a defender of unconscionable interest rates, and someone indifferent to poisoning children has a conscience capable of adhering to a ‘value system’.
>Are you fucking kidding me? Is that really your reasoning? Show me one bank, anywhere, that offers the explanation “We issued credit cards to high risk peolpe because we didn’t want them going to laon sharks.” Or “Well, if we didn’t make the high risk stupid loan someone else would have.”
I have to say, it’s pretty silly that you would get pissed when people don’t interpret what you say the way you want them to, when you mangle what I said that badly.
You said that, in your reasonable world, banks would deny credit to people who aren’t worthy. If said people really want that credit, what will they do? They will go to progressively more marginal lenders in order to get credit, until they reach loan sharks at the bottom. (If they were willing to go that far.) I’m simply pointing out that your desire for lenders to deny people credit in order to keep them out of trouble for their own good doesn’t seem very realistic. How you managed to morph that into “you said that banks should give loans to people so they won’t go to loan sharks!” is beyond me.
>Unwarranted as determined before the fact because the level of risk has been evaluated and found to be too high. Of course you don’t know the outcome for certain in advance. That’s why it’s called “risk”. And analyzing and evaluating risk is part of what banks are supposed to do so that they then avoid things where the risk is to high.
Help me out here. You say that something can be an unwarranted risk if the risk level has been found to be too high. Then you concede that risk, by definition, means that you cannot know the outcome in advance. If you cannot know the outcome in advance, how can you claim that you should have known beforehand that it was an unwarranted risk? Sure, lenders analyze and evaluate risk. And they get it wrong sometimes, especially for large scale events that they didn’t see coming, such as the recent crash. Or..? Are you claiming that they did see it coming and didn’t care?
Remember when I said:
(Exception of News though, his comments lead to believe he is pretty far out there.)
I rest my case. News – what will you do with all those “sociopaths” of yours that don’t believe as you think they should?
Haplo9: Um, ok. I’ll take that as a “I don’t want to talk about this anymore.” Citing regulations is a bit different than discussing the philosophy behind them.
I could take that as YOU don’t want to discuss it anymore, but I suspect you will. You asked for specifics: “I’m asking you to enunciate how that would work … get more specific about how it would work” and I provide you several specific examples as requested. Not just theoretical “here’s how I would do it” that you could then try to debate the merits of but actual examples of regulations in place that serve as concrete, working examples.
Haplo9: Sure, lenders analyze and evaluate risk.
Actually, in regards to this crisis they weren’t bothering to evaluate the risk before lending because the mortgages were immediately sold and repackaged into CDOs. The risk was somebody else’s problem.
Of course, a bit of regulation, like say making sure that the lender holds on to the mortgage for some number of months before selling it, or some government oversight of the ratings agencies, may have avoided this entire thing. But we wouldn’t want that, because that’d encroach on a bank’s freedom to recklessly endanger our financial system and economy.
In the predatory right wing world of “Haplo9’s” imagination, banks should be allowed to charge unconscionable interest rates because ? “loan shark“!
Right wing predator “Haplo9″ is like a bad Saturday Night Live skit that just won’t go away.
Apparently con artists “Colin” and “Jay Tea” took the day off.
If you were a terrible risk because you regularly failed to pay a lender back, then in a reasonable world the bank wouldn’t issue you a credit card instead.
…
["Haplo9"] Really? What if the lendee really wanted it? Would you prefer they go to a loan shark instead? I don’t see how you are likely to deny credit to someone who is determined to get it.
http://google.com/search?q=land+shark
Haplo9: “Are you claiming that they did see it coming and didn’t care?”
There’s a reason why conmen look for a greedy mark. Greed makes people stupid.
An independent party, like the government, can be a much better judge of risk than someone who would profit if these risky investments paid off.
Sean, in my very first comment:
>Where will you find these magical government bureaucrats that can a. assess better than said companies how risky the new enterprise is? b. put rules into place that will prevent the companies from engaging in the truly dangerous parts of this enterprise (that apparently only these bureaucrats can see)*without* discouraging risk taking in general? c. won’t be influenced by said companies though self interested argument or outright bribery and corruption?
Maybe I wasn’t clear what I was after. (And admittedly, talking about magical government bureaucrats probably didn’t help.) Do you think a, b, or c are problems when talking about regulation? If not, why not? I think all of those points are important – in particular, expecting a regulator to understand his assigned industry better than the industry itself seems unrealistic to me. I think c is important too, but it’s just part of the political process now. Regulated industries will always try to influence regulation in their favor.
a and b in particular strike me as issues that strongly reduce the effectiveness of regulation, because the real disasters that will hit us are the ones that the regulators don’t have the expertise or experience to see ahead of time – and neither does the industry in question. See, this is known as discussion – these are my opinions, and I’m looking for holes in said opinions, things I haven’t considered, or things I’ve missed, and how people not of my political persuasion view such things. Crazy, I know.
Haplo9: If said people really want that credit, what will they do? They will go to progressively more marginal lenders in order to get credit, until they reach loan sharks at the bottom. (If they were willing to go that far.)
Yes, they will stop looking for a loan if the terms become too risky. Banks should do the same but many haven’t.
I’m simply pointing out that your desire for lenders to deny people credit in order to keep them out of trouble for their own good
Not what I said. Try again.
How you managed to morph that into “you said that banks should give loans to people so they won’t go to loan sharks!” is beyond me.
Uh, from “Really? What if the lendee really wanted it? Would you prefer they go to a loan shark instead?”
Is there some conclusion we’re to draw from this other than “if they don’t get it from a bank they’ll go to a loan shark”. If so, you really need to work on making sure you say what you want to say.
–
Help me out here. You say that something can be an unwarranted risk if the risk level has been found to be too high. Then you concede that risk, by definition, means that you cannot know the outcome in advance. If you cannot know the outcome in advance, how can you claim that you should have known beforehand that it was an unwarranted risk?
People have survived falls from tremendous heights. Slipped off a sixth story balcony and survived. So if you were to jump out a sixth story window the outcome would not be certain. Now, you going to claim that because there is some uncertainty in the outcome that you can’t determine that it is likely to end badly?
Or..? Are you claiming that they did see [the recent crash] coming and didn’t care?
I’m not claiming anything. I haven’t said anything about the recent crash.
>Of course, a bit of regulation, like say making sure that the lender holds on to the mortgage for some number of months before selling it, or some government oversight of the ratings agencies, may have avoided this entire thing.
Even if one were to grant that those two things may have avoided the entire thing (which.. are they just guesses? Hopes? What?) who would have known to put those regulations in place back when it would have mattered?
limulus concise explanation is something that needs wider dissemination.
Haplo9: Sure, lenders analyze and evaluate risk.
[limulus:] Actually, in regards to this crisis they weren’t bothering to evaluate the risk before lending because the mortgages were immediately sold and repackaged into CDOs. The risk was somebody else’s problem.
Of course, a bit of regulation, like say making sure that the lender holds on to the mortgage for some number of months before selling it, or some government oversight of the ratings agencies, may have avoided this entire thing.
This should be simple enough for even “Haplo9″ to digest, but they aren’t about the discussion of ideas, they are here to fanatically push a failed right wing economic fantasy.
Haplo9: “Even if one were to grant that those two things may have avoided the entire thing (which.. are they just guesses? Hopes? What?) who would have known to put those regulations in place back when it would have mattered?”
These regulations are in place in Canada, and our banks didn’t get hit by these problems. At least not directly.
Is this a coincidence? Or did these regulation have real effects?
Were they in place by coincidence? Or did someone foresee the problems that would arrive if the banks didn’t have a stake in the loans they made?
Right winger “Haplo9’s” predatory con artistry reveals a particularly pernicious type of right winger logic here:
“Haplo9″: The whole point of risk is that you don’t know the outcome in advance…
Risk management is an entire industry.
In fact, the entire insurance industry is based on being able to predict the outcome of risk in advance.
And as Sean points out analyzing and evaluating risk is part of what banks are supposed to do so that they then avoid things where the risk is to high.
In fact, ANALYZING RISK(S) TO LOAN MONEY IS THE MOST CRUCIAL ELEMENT OF BANKING.
The irony is that the global financial system bought into right wing economic fictions and that fictional right wing economic “philosophy” led directly to a nearly simultaneous, global collapse of the financial industry.
“Risks” are/were always someone else’s problem in the right wing fantasy economics game. It was a global game of hot potato.
And, as it has done before, government and taxpayers are left to pick up the pieces (mashed potatoes in the mud?) while the predatory right wing con artists that “Haplo9″ is covering for abscond with the loot.
“Haplo9″: It just seems unlikely to me that major lenders could reasonably assume bailouts would occur.
It was precisely what “major lenders” assumed in the Chrysler case, they expected bailouts and barring that were ready to flush an American manufacturing company down the toilet for their greed.
They played chicken with the President and it’s likely that everyone will now lose.
We’ll have to wait and see whether a judge is kindly disposed towards the bettors that essentially took out an insurance policy and then torched the business to get the insurance policy paid off.
>Not what I said. Try again.
Maybe you can explain what you meant then. After all, you said this:
>If you were a terrible risk because you regularly failed to pay a lender back, then in a reasonable world the bank wouldn’t issue you a credit card instead.
My response being, ok, so why wouldn’t that person go on to the next lender down, so on and so forth, until they get to the bottom (a loan shark?) Sort of a noncontroversial point, or so I thought. If you weren’t saying that bad credit risks simply shouldn’t receive credit, then what were you saying?
I still don’t see any plausibility in what you are saying – you seem to think that credit should have been denied to people in the past based on what is known in the present. Well, yeah, that’d be great if anyone could do that.
>People have survived falls from tremendous heights. Slipped off a sixth story balcony and survived. So if you were to jump out a sixth story window the outcome would not be certain. Now, you going to claim that because there is some uncertainty in the outcome that you can’t determine that it is likely to end badly?
A ridiculous comparison. Any analysis of risk would conclude that the risk of death is upwards of 99%. Would you seriously claim that lenders knew with anything resembling that same amount of certainty what the outcome of their lending would be?
I’m sorry, but this is just idiotic:
>Risk management is an entire industry. In fact, the entire insurance industry is based on being able to predict the outcome of risk in advance.
It sure is. And risk assessment isn’t an exact science – they get it wrong! Let me know when you’ve figured out how to perfectly assess risk, because when you do, I’ll use your perfect risk assessment to never lose money in the stock market. It’ll be great.
>And as Sean points out analyzing and evaluating risk is part of what banks are supposed to do so that they then avoid things where the risk is to high.
And when they get it wrong, you want to be able to indict their risk analysis after the fact, knowing what happened after they made that analysis. Hindsight is certainly perfect, as you and Sean are busily proving.
Haplo9: “A ridiculous comparison.”
As is your argument.
“Any analysis of risk would conclude that the risk of death is upwards of 99%. Would you seriously claim that lenders knew with anything resembling that same amount of certainty what the outcome of their lending would be?”
And your argument is, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘They couldn’t possibly known the risk.’
Guess what? They could have known the risk. They should have known the risk. Perhaps not with 99% certainly, but they should have known that enough loans would have gone bad to pull the whole system down.
Haplo9: “If you weren’t saying that bad credit risks simply shouldn’t receive credit, then what were you saying?”
That’s not what you said he said. You said, “…your desire for lenders to deny people credit in order to keep them out of trouble for their own good…”
It might not seem different to you, but it is.
Denying loans to people who can’t pay them back is not the same as denying loans to people in general. One is a blanket policy and the other looks at the individual circumstances.
Haplo9: Even if one were to grant that those two things may have avoided the entire thing (which.. are they just guesses? Hopes? What?) who would have known to put those regulations in place back when it would have mattered?
They’re guesses that I came up with on the spot.
As for “who could have known,” 3 years ago the agent I got my mortgage from and the agent at the escrow company both expressed unease about how mortgages were immediately sold to someone else. If they saw it as a problem, surely some “bureaucrat” with expertise in the financial industry could have too.
Right winger “Haplo9″ is absurdly dishonest.
They are here to spout nonsense and call it “discussion”.
It’s a classic right wing scheme:
They insist that the “discussion” start from their position of “regulation” having “problems”.
When countered by a long list of things that government is best at regulating (air, water, soil, food supply [at the most basic]) they ignore it.
Their point is to ignore sensible regulation and demand that the “discussion” is about how “regulation[s]“ are the “problems”.
The same deceitful right wing ploy is used when confronted by a long list of things government has an excellent and centuries long record of doing exceptionally well (going back to the Romans: aqueducts [plumbing water], sanitation [sewage and trash removal], the roads, irrigation [dams], medicine [Pure Food and Drug Act, medical research, medline database], education [state colleges, college loans, college grants], public baths [public swimming pools], safe streets, public order, public health and peace).
None of it’s addressed. Instead the entire compiled list that repudiates “Haplo9’s” absurd positions is just ignored.
The “holes” in “Haplo9’s” opinions are so numerous that the Swiss cheese metaphor is completely inverted.
The reality is there is NO substance to any of “Haplo9’s” “arguments”.
F&F was a private corperation. I’m sorry that you don’t understand English.
Freddie and Fannie — which are separate organizations — are Government Sponsored Enterprises. They are not creatures of the private sector and were created by government. While they lack explicit government guarantees for their operations in reality this is the case. Indeed, they are set for an even bigger new bailout:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050801558_pf.html
Like I said, the opposite of the Midas touch.
Again, here’s an offer. Congressional Democrats can take blame for F&F, while the private industry takes blame for the rest. Deal?
The point was that government was on the same side as the bankers. Therefore the notion of them serving as the sober bartender is utterly ridiculous. And all those private sector actors were regulated, including the rating agencies that were even licensed by the government.
TranslatioN: “I don’t even know where Dubai IS.”
Translation: You, again, have no idea what you are talking about. Dubai isn’t a libertarian paradise. It’s a monarchy while low levels of economic freedom.
limulus: “As for ‘who could have known,’ 3 years ago the agent I got my mortgage from and the agent at the escrow company both expressed unease about how mortgages were immediately sold to someone else. If they saw it as a problem, surely some ‘bureaucrat’ with expertise in the financial industry could have too.”
I believe people like Haplo9 assume that since they didn’t predict it would happen, no one could have predicted it would happen. The problem was just so unpredictable.
No, the problem was predictable. People like Haplo9 are just stupid.
If your only criteria for success is increase in trade.
Trade drives prosperity. Both countries are richer for having the deal in place.
Yet presumably you’re comfortable letting the government regulate the roads the trucks drive on. Or regulate air travel safety. But when it comes to letting the government make the rules related to the financial industry you think they can’t handle it?
I’m favor of the government operating most roads, as I see no other alternative. Indeed, that’s the test for what government should be doing: can the private sector do it instead? For most roads the answer is no, as city streets for example are a natural monopoly. For much of government operations this is not the case.
But since you asked, I am in favor of privatizing air traffic control like in Canada and think that much government regulation of airlines is pointless. After all, does the government know how to better operate planes than the companies? And if a company was known for its planes crashing frequently who would fly them? It’s a fast route to bankruptcy.
Financial institutions are not individuals, and their actions can have consequences beyond themselves, both good and bad. The point of regulating them is to keep the bad consequences to a minimum.
You are presuming that government has special knowledge of how to keep the bad consequences to a minimum, which is not at all clear. Indeed, in the housing sector government helped fuel the fire, with the mortgage interest rate deduction, cheap money and actions by Freddie and Fannie.
Look folks let’s simplify this whole discussion. You need public sector oversite of the private sector. You also need private sector oversite of the public sector. And you need a vigilant media making sure the private and public sectors don’t get in bed with each other.
And if a company was known for its planes crashing frequently who would fly them? It’s a fast route to bankruptcy.
And that has to be the most idiotic statement in this entire debate. Sure, let’s privatize the inspection and regulation of aircraft safety. It will only take a few 747s going down before people start choosing their airlines more wisely.
And yet Canada Post continues to show profits.
Maybe it’s not governments that are the problem, but Americans.
And we’re Americans, so what is your point? Do we need a public education campaign to show people how great government is?
In any case we could be like those radical libertarians in Germany and privatize the post office.
You’ve been told ‘Government is not the solution, it is the problem!’ so often that you believe it is gospel, and not some bullshit political talking point.
The problem with government is observable reality. It functions rather poorly.
The simple fact is, Canada has more regulations, and the Canadian banking systems is the strongest in the world. Now, there’s the correlation / causation problem here; however, we can work under the assumption that one lead to the other, or we can pretend regulations have no effect. In which case, the only other conclusion is… Canadians are better than Americans.
Canada also lacks an equivalent for Fannie and Freddie or other government measures trying to promote home ownership so your example isn’t exactly apples to apples.
At some point right wing trolls become caricatures of right wing deceit.
Each time their arguments are addressed they change the subject.
When explicit falsehoods of their arguments are explicitly shown to be false, they change the subject.
Part of their scheme is to demand that their absurdly false premises are granted to be magically ‘true’ as part of the “discussion”.
Part of the deceit is to never fall out of character. It’s an act. It’s dishonest to the core.
There is never any intention of honestly engaging in a “discussion”.
The point is to always manipulate the conversation back into their black hole of deceit.
On a related note, there was a lively discussion by radio hosts Hartmann and Schultz as to whether or not Obama’s discussions with the health corporations was, well, healthy, or if it was just a sucker’s game and he was setting US all up for another con artist ride by the healthcorps.
And so now “Colin” the Con Artist has added his ever deceitful voice to that of “Haplo9’s” sociopathic predaciousness.
Tell US again, “Colin” how a 60% reduction in unemployment is ‘nothing to write home about.’
Or my favorite “Colin’ism”: how 99 and 10 are the same because they are both “double digits”.
Hey, “Colin”, explain again how the “welfare capitalism” nation of Norway which has a higher per capita GDP than US as well as lower infant mortality and longer lifespans proves ? ?
?
That “welfare capitalism” is a successful economic system?
Your arguments aren’t quite as absurd as “Haplo9’s” but their end result is just as deceitful.
Here’s a counter example from a Nobel Prize winning economist who has a knack for getting really important shit right:
I’ll take Krugman’s word since I don’t know enough about the VHA. I will note, however, that we don’t have a truly free market in health care, with government promoting the use of insurance. It’s a stupid approach that promotes overconsumption and higher costs. Fee for service would be superior, which is why with Lasik eye treatments for example, which is not covered by insurance, you find no cost inflation and improved quality like many other consumer products.
And that has to be the most idiotic statement in this entire debate. Sure, let’s privatize the inspection and regulation of aircraft safety. It will only take a few 747s going down before people start choosing their airlines more wisely.
Right, because the companies won’t care if their planes crash or not and the pilots won’t either. I’m sure that aircraft would be falling out of the sky left and right if it wasn’t for regulation.
News Reference — I clicked on your website while tripping on acid. It scared the hell out of me.
Colin: “But since you asked, I am in favor of privatizing air traffic control like in Canada and think that much government regulation of airlines is pointless. After all, does the government know how to better operate planes than the companies? And if a company was known for its planes crashing frequently who would fly them? It’s a fast route to bankruptcy.”
So you would have people sacrificed to the invisible hand of the market?
You are one sick fucker.
Most reasonable people would think that minimum safety levels are something government can and should regulate.
Me: “And yet Canada Post continues to show profits.
Maybe it’s not governments that are the problem, but Americans.”
Colin: “And we’re Americans, so what is your point?”
My point is, you are fucking stupid. Thank you for backing me up on that one.
“Do we need a public education campaign to show people how great government is?”
You need less people like you talking when they don’t know what they are saying.
Me: “You’ve been told ‘Government is not the solution, it is the problem!’ so often that you believe it is gospel, and not some bullshit political talking point.”
Colin: “The problem with government is observable reality. It functions rather poorly.”
This is a fucking lie. It is a fucking lie told by liars who don’t want the government competing with private companies, because they know the government would win in many cases.
As I’ve already said, USPS might be a failure, but not because it is run by the government.
The fact that Canada Post runs a profit is 100% proof of that.
Or 100% proof that Canadians are better than Americans. Take your pick.
Me: “The simple fact is, Canada has more regulations, and the Canadian banking systems is the strongest in the world. Now, there’s the correlation / causation problem here; however, we can work under the assumption that one lead to the other, or we can pretend regulations have no effect. In which case, the only other conclusion is… Canadians are better than Americans.”
Colin: “Canada also lacks an equivalent for Fannie and Freddie or other government measures trying to promote home ownership so your example isn’t exactly apples to apples.”
Another person stupid enough to believe Freddie / Mae caused the mortgage crisis.
Hey, Dipshit, Fannie / Mac’s collapse was a symptom, not a cause.
Get educated and come back when you know what you are talking about.
Colin: “Right, because the companies won’t care if their planes crash or not…”
If it means they can squeeze profits in the short term, then yes. After all, they won’t die in those planecrashes, nor will they suffer the financial loss, because the people making these decisions will simply take their money and run.
“I’m sure that aircraft would be falling out of the sky left and right if it wasn’t for regulation.”
Do a little research of recent mining disasters. The come back to me and tell me that companies give a fuck about safety standards if it means cutting into profits.
“Dubai isn’t a libertarian paradise. It’s a monarchy while low levels of economic freedom.”
It’s where Republican Vice President Cheney’s old war profiteering corporation KBR-Halliburton scurried away to.
The “monarchy” thing with “low levels” of “freedom” must have been Cheney’s buddies attraction.
Haplo9: who would have known to put those regulations in place back when it would have mattered?
Let’s see. Not only does Haplo seem to believe you can’t consider risk since the outcome is uncertain, but he also thinks you shouldn’t consider closing the barn door until the horse a bit down the road.
After all, who could possibly foresee something might go wrong?
Would you seriously claim that lenders knew with anything resembling that same amount of certainty what the outcome of their lending would be?
Banking wasn’t invented yesterday. They have incredibly vast amounts of data to draw upon and analyze. Banks should be able to evaluate a prospective customer and determine within a great deal of accuracy the likelihood of a loan being paid back.
Banks are raising rates based on which stores people shop in. Shop in the same places as people who have defaulted and they start seeing you as a greater risk and raise the rate on your card. Did all the tracking data that let them analyze shopping patterns suddenly appear today? OF course not.
Yes, the lenders should have known with something resembling that same amount of certainty what they outcome of their lending would be.
And risk assessment isn’t an exact science – they get it wrong!
Of course they do. So what? Does that mean they shouldn’t ever calculate risk at all?
You are determined to miss the point.
And when they get it wrong, you want to be able to indict their risk analysis after the fact, knowing what happened after they made that analysis.
Well, criticizing someone for something after they’ve done it, rather than before, seems more reasonable to me.
And, yes, either their analysis was flawed (and therefore worthy of being criticized) or ignored (and therefore the same.)
“Trade drives prosperity. Both countries are richer for having the deal in place.”
So how much did you get for selling out America to China, “Colin”?
You sold out America, China got America’ manufacturing base, and you got ? cheap products from Wal Mart?
Not only did you sell out America, you sold out cheap.
Right wing con artist “Colin” is “in favor of privatizing air traffic control”
“Colin’s” right wing solutions to a ’self-regulating market’ is: “if a company was known for its planes crashing frequently who would fly them?”
Yup. That’s crazy.
“Colin” wants to gamble lives, not just the flyers, but anyone that might get hit by plane debris, for his magic market.
Typical right wingers, so ready to gamble lives for their fictional economic cult.
“Colin”: “in the housing sector government helped fuel the fire”
You are talking about the Republican controlled government with a right wing Libertarian* at the helm of the Fed.
So clearly American’s should never allow a right wing government nor ever allow Libertarian’s to be in charge of anything.
Isn’t that how “Colin”-logic works?
* right wing Libertarian is redundant of course.
Correcting right winger “Colin”:
The problem[s] with unregulated predatory capitalism is observable reality. It functions rather poorly.
Regulated capitalism functions considerably better than unregulated predatory capitalism.
That’s both observable reality and factual history.
Colin: After all, does the government know how to better operate planes than the companies? And if a company was known for its planes crashing frequently who would fly them? It’s a fast route to bankruptcy.
Yes, that certainly helps. However, you’ll note that the people who fly the planes are typically not the same people who make decisions that affect aircraft safety. All too often, executives are more concerned about profit than about their customer’s safety. This is an inherent flaw in how “public” corporations are designed; their only accountability mechanism is profit, which lends a convenient excuse to do what is in the short term a gain, but in the long term a loss.
If they never made such mistakes, then perhaps it would be OK to let corporations police themselves. But that’s not the case, s how would you propose to fix or mitigate this flaw?
Indeed, that’s the test for what government should be doing: can the private sector do it instead better?
That’s the test I’d prefer.
Oops. Please imagine that “instead” in my above comment had been struckthrough.
If Republican voters ever figure out that Right Wingers like “Colin” and “Haplo9″ are fraudster con artists it will be the end of the Republican Party.
It’s astonishing how many lies Right Wingers have managed to stuff into this thread alone.
“You are determined to miss the point.”
Clearly this is correct.
It’s a stupid approach that promotes overconsumption and higher costs. Fee for service would be superior, which is why with Lasik eye treatments for example, which is not covered by insurance, you find no cost inflation and improved quality like many other consumer products.
And teh stoopid just keeps getting stoopider.
Lasik is an entirely optional procedure available only to those who have disposable income, not being covered by insurance and all.
My son’s asthma medication and my daughter’s annual visit to the pediatric cardiologist, are not optional.
I have been toying with a News Reference Drinking Game.
Take a drink whenever Newsy:
* Puts “scare quotes” around someone else’s name.
* Puts at least two “scare quotes” in every other sentence.
* Links to his own hideous blog to support his arguments. (Warning: put on very, very dark glasses before clicking on any links that lead to “havenworks.”
* Capitalizes “Right Wingers” as teh ultimate insult.
* Oh-so-cleverly uses “cons” to mean “conservatives,” “negatives,” and “confidence artists.”
* Conflates “government” with “the people” whenever anyone dares question the government’s policies or power (a theory I strongly suspect he only recently adapted.
* Portrays anyone who disagrees with him as an extremist — such as above, when those who question the extent that government should regulate as anarchists who want to smash all government.
* Dismisses his detractors as only pushing a “failed right wing fantasy,” and not interested in discussing things.
* Introduces Wal-Mart, the Great Source Of All Things Evil, into a discussion that previously had nothing to do with Wal-Mart.
On second thought, this would be a terrible idea. I don’t think anyone could survive this thread alone.
J.
Jay Tea, we’d all be drunk within minutes.
I can’t get past the second sentence of any of News Reference’s piffle-laden posts, sober or otherwise.
Take a drink whenever Newsy:
* rambles on for more than 8 paragraphs in a single comment
My son’s asthma medication and my daughter’s annual visit to the pediatric cardiologist, are not optional.
And neither is food. But I imagine you still shop around for it.
So you would have people sacrificed to the invisible hand of the market?
You are one sick fucker.
Glad you were able to read between the lines. I was afraid I was going to have to be more explicit about my desire for more dead people.
This is a fucking lie. It is a fucking lie told by liars who don’t want the government competing with private companies, because they know the government would win in many cases.
You’re right. Everything I said is a lie.
The fiscal calamity that is Medicare and Social Security is a delusion. They are actually great programs that are fiscally sound. Agriculture subsidies are wonderful. Government programs really are winning the war on poverty. Government run schools are wonderful and better than their private sector counterparts. Amtrak is a first class operation that consistently shows profits. Government funding for ethanol is a great source of alternative energy. The USPS is better than either Fedex or UPS. Government efforts to curb drug use have been an unqualified success. Government workers are synonymous with speed and efficiency.
And I’m the idiot.
If it means they can squeeze profits in the short term, then yes. After all, they won’t die in those planecrashes, nor will they suffer the financial loss, because the people making these decisions will simply take their money and run.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CEOs will start up a capital intensive business based on thin margins and then take off running after their planes start to crash. Another gem from the reality-based community.
Do a little research of recent mining disasters. The come back to me and tell me that companies give a fuck about safety standards if it means cutting into profits.
Huh, mine deaths were the lowest on record last year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-08-mine-deaths_N.htm
Yes, a damning indictment.
This is an inherent flaw in how “public” corporations are designed; their only accountability mechanism is profit, which lends a convenient excuse to do what is in the short term a gain, but in the long term a loss.
Except that we see plenty of companies that show consistent, long-term profits. If your contention held true then companies would consistently post profits for only a few years and then go bankrupt.
If they never made such mistakes, then perhaps it would be OK to let corporations police themselves. But that’s not the case, s how would you propose to fix or mitigate this flaw?
As opposed to what? Mistakes are made with government regulation too. Planes still crash.
The best solution is to let the market — i.e. the people as consumers — police the companies. Companies that underperform go down. Competition breeds excellence.
Yes, that sounds plausible. CEOs will start up a capital intensive business based on thin margins and then take off running after their planes start to crash. Another gem from the reality-based community.
Should read: Yes, that sounds plausible. CEOs will start up a capital intensive business based on thin margins and then take off running with fistfuls of cash after their planes start to crash. Another gem from the reality-based community.
Colin: and then take off running after their planes start to crash
Because only bankers do that and you can count on executives in other industries to go down with their ships.
Colin: Huh, mine deaths were the lowest on record last year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-08-mine-deaths_N.htm
Yes, a damning indictment.
And why are they so low?
Clearly all the more reason to not regulate.
Colin: Except that we see plenty of companies that show consistent, long-term profits. If your contention held true then companies would consistently post profits for only a few years and then go bankrupt.
If by “but in the long term a loss” you mean literally lower revenues than expenses. But by constantly focussing on the short term, on making this quarter’s numbers and keeping today’s stock price high, the long term health and value of the company can suffer. A “loss” in terms of it not being where it could be.
The easy example, of course, is American car companies.
The best solution is to let the market — i.e. the people as consumers — police the companies. Companies that underperform go down. Competition breeds excellence.
OK. So how would that work? How do you ensure the public knows enough to make informed, rational choices?
Should a company make its books available so that any person who wants to can audit them? Should an airline make its maintenance records available so any person can review them? Should a food processing plant be available anytime a person wants to inspect their operation to verify the beef is safe?
Seems pretty impractical. Not everyone can be an accountant/aeronautical engineer/forensic veterinarian. Even if provided with unlimited access to everything, people wouldn’t have the knowledge or training to understand. Perhaps we could arrange for someone who was trained in an appropriate area to do the audits/inspections/analysis and then prepare a report for the public.
As long as it isn’t the SEC, NTSB or FDA because we wouldn’t want to get government involved.
“Revamped safety laws and beefed up enforcement were among factors that led to the overall decline in mining deaths.”
Gee, I thought it was conservatives who were for “enforcing the existing laws.” Lord knows I am — in precedence over passing new laws.
We got tons of laws already on the books that aren’t enforced. Let’s start taking those seriously before we start passing new ones.
The mining safety laws obviously weren’t being enforced rigorously before. That doesn’t mean we necessarily need new ones.
Likewise, we don’t need “hate crime” laws. We already have laws that forbid certain behaviors — such as murder and arson and the like. Two of the guys who killed James Bird got the death sentence, and the third cooperated with law enforcement for a life sentence. Likewise, the killers of Matthew Shepard were also convicted of murder.
We have laws against illegal immigration, overstaying visas, hiring illegal aliens, and identity theft. Let’s enforce them, too.
About 30 years ago, Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox law that added penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. Good idea. I don’t think it’s EVER been used.
Yes, some new regulations were passed on the coal mining industry. Maybe they were needed, maybe not. But the lax enforcement of existing laws is indisputably a wrong thing.
Of course, Obama doesn’t agree with this. He’s already stated that the most important criteria for his next Supreme Court justice will be “empathy” and “compassion.”
Not jurisprudence or wisdom.
J.
here’s a good drinking game: Drink every time Jay Tea gets a basic fact wrong. Drink again when he ignores the correction.
Jay Tea, this is the second time you’ve have to had to be told that you have no idea what the Bartley-Fox law does:
Jay Tea, Bartley-Fox makes it a crime to carry a gun without a permit. And it’s never been used EVER?
Tell it to this guy:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-208.html
Has the law been effective? Judge for yourself:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1044075
Also:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Mills1.htm
Jay tea, you are the stupidest fucking person on the planet.
And since I know it’s coming, that first example of the guy who got caught up in the law speaks to the need for “empathy” and “compassion” in judges when determining sentencing, especially when the law itself is actually effective in its proper applications.
Just think, in a month, you can go from being a big-shot to sucking dicks in the back of an Olive Garden.
Awesome.
Colin: Except that we see plenty of companies that show consistent, long-term profits. If your contention held true then companies would consistently post profits for only a few years and then go bankrupt.
The fact that you say “a few years” is long term shows that your thinking has the same flaw as many big decision makers in corporations. Poor maintenance practices related to aircrafts can take more than a few years to manifest itself in a plane crash.
The best solution is to let the market — i.e. the people as consumers — police the companies. Companies that underperform go down. Competition breeds excellence.
Look, we’re in agreement about capitalism being a good thing. But regulatory agencies like the FAA, FDA, EPA, and NRC and the laws they enforce are an extra safety net for what market forces don’t always catch.
And why are they so low?
Except, mining fatalities have been on a long downward trajectory regardless of regulation:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa453/pa45300006im.jpg
Complete study here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa453/pa453index.html
If by “but in the long term a loss” you mean literally lower revenues than expenses. But by constantly focussing on the short term, on making this quarter’s numbers and keeping today’s stock price high, the long term health and value of the company can suffer. A “loss” in terms of it not being where it could be.
The easy example, of course, is American car companies.
Again, if this were true, if companies only focused on the next quarter and were blind to long-term prospects we should expect them to go bankrupt after a short period. We don not see this. Indeed, the car companies have been around for decades. And you are only speaking of American car companies. Many other car companies are much more sound such as Toyota.
<OK. So how would that work? How do you ensure the public knows enough to make informed, rational choices?
Easy. For example before you buy a car you consult with car experts to read reviews on things like reliability, resale value, etc. If there is a need for information the market will provide it.
Same with most of your purchases. Don’t your read a review before seeing a movie or buying a television? This holds true for so many things.
Should a company make its books available so that any person who wants to can audit them? Should an airline make its maintenance records available so any person can review them? Should a food processing plant be available anytime a person wants to inspect their operation to verify the beef is safe?
I think it should be their call. If they don’t want to open their books, that’s fine, but it also creates an cloud of suspicion that they are trying to hide something and will probably deter investment, costing them money. Likewise with airlines. If a media source says that a particular airline does not with to open its books while another does then that could affect passenger decisions.
Seems pretty impractical. Not everyone can be an accountant/aeronautical engineer/forensic veterinarian.</i.
Thankfully they don’t have to be. I only possess the most rudimentary knowledge of how car engines work, but I don’t need to know. Car and Driver, JD Power and Associates, etc. tell me what I need to know.
Even if provided with unlimited access to everything, people wouldn’t have the knowledge or training to understand. Perhaps we could arrange for someone who was trained in an appropriate area to do the audits/inspections/analysis and then prepare a report for the public..
Again, people don’t need to know. Look for example at Underwriters Laboratories, a private organization that does all kinds of safety testing on consumer products:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
(full disclosure they are licensed by OSHA)
All you need to do is look for their logo to know if something is safe.
As long as it isn’t the SEC, NTSB or FDA because we wouldn’t want to get government involved.
Government has demonstrated no special aptitude at this.
The fact that you say “a few years” is long term shows that your thinking has the same flaw as many big decision makers in corporations. Poor maintenance practices related to aircrafts can take more than a few years to manifest itself in a plane crash.
No, I am going on the fact that there is a perception that companies only focus on the short-term. The short-term is only a few years. If there focus didn’t go beyond this they would be dead after that time.
And if companies only focus on the short term how do you explain their longevity? How do you explain GM investing in the Volt or other concept cars? How do you explain Southwest Airlines?
Look, we’re in agreement about capitalism being a good thing. But regulatory agencies like the FAA, FDA, EPA, and NRC and the laws they enforce are an extra safety net for what market forces don’t always catch.</i.
Where is the evidence of this? I think the FDA is a particularly bad example, especially when they withhold drugs to terminally ill patients because they haven’t been approved. Where is the sense in that?
I make an exception for the EPA, since I do think that there is a role for government in regulating pollution since this is a tragedy of the commons. But I think we should make the commons as small as possible.
Because only bankers do that and you can count on executives in other industries to go down with their ships.
Maybe the government shouldn’t bail out those bankers.
In any case in the airline example after you invest in the planes and personnel to make the company work and then get your thin margins there won’t be any money to run off with once the planes all crash.
Colin, I do shop around for my kids’ medical needs. Or rather, the insurance company does it for me by setting rates it will reimburse for particular drugs or procedures. (Try paying out of pocket for dental – you’ll get charged a lot more than the insurance company gets billed for the same procedure.) And the company I work for shops around for the best insurance it can afford for its employees. That’s how the bleeding insurance industry works.
And yet, conservatives argue that having insurance somehow encourages people to what, spend lavishly on health care? Opt for procedures they don’t need just for grins?
Morons.
The right wing libertarian CATO institute loses more and more credibility each year.
CATO has become an arm of the corporations in far too many cases.
It’s sad, really. An honest “Libertarian” perspective can be useful.
Unfortunately, “Libertarians” like “Colin” are just sociopaths with sheep’s clothing.
“Colin” redundantly repeats falsehoods and when called on it, he just trots out more falsehoods.
“Colin’s” right wing magical philosophy has never been used by a successful nation.
“Colin’s” “Libertarian” pseudo-philosophy, as it’s currently constituted, is actually what hurts nations.
Libertarians like “Colin” are welcome to move to the Libertarian Paradise with my blessing.
Just make sure to leave your citizenship at the door, “Colin.”
“Colin” is a perfect representative of the THE NEW LIBERTARIANS: WILLING TO RISK OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES for their sociopathic greed.
Sick.
Following right winger “Colin” in a thread is like following an elephant around.
Be careful where you step, it’s knee-high bullshit.
To everyone that has gone out of their way to clean up “Colin’s” crap, corrected his falsehoods, corrected his misrepresentations, corrected his half-truths, and corrected his out right lies, bless you all.
It’s nasty, dirty work cleaning up after right wingers like “Colin’s” bullshit but it has to be done or right wing deceivers will lie the country into stupid again.
Wow, did Newsy just say, in essence, “America: love it or leave it?” Man, haven’t heard that one since… well, I think that was a big Klan slogan.
And hey, we have a new definition: Sociopath means “someone who disagrees with Newsy.”
But for Newsy’s suggestion of that “libertarian paradise” (although it’s closer to an “anarchist paradise” — and those anarchists are usually horribly anti-corporation, too) of Somalia… apparently he doesn’t remember that sending Americans to Somalia for remarkably fungible reasons and no fucking clue on what to do there ended up getting quite a few loyal American soldiers killed for no real reason whatsoever — isn’t that right, Madame Secretary of State?
J.
Colin: And if companies only focus on the short term how do you explain their longevity? How do you explain GM investing in the Volt or other concept cars? How do you explain Southwest Airlines?
I never said that corporations never consider the long term, only that they often focus on the short term, and that this can sometimes have serious detrimental repercussions beyond an individual corporation. Please see the causes of our recent financial crisis turned economic recession for examples.
Where is the evidence of this? I think the FDA is a particularly bad example, especially when they withhold drugs to terminally ill patients because they haven’t been approved. Where is the sense in that?
Sure, that’s dumb. And I’ve got a lot of other issues with how the FDA is run. But despite doing stupid things they’re still worth keeping around. In fact, we might even be able to change how the FDA is run! Pretty cool, huh?
Right winger “Colin”: “I think the FDA is a particularly bad example, especially when they withhold drugs”
Like thalidomide?
Just how sick are you, “Colin”?
The drug Thalidomide, given to pregnant women around the world, caused horrible, horrible birth defects.
But there were NO “Thalidomide babies” in the US because the FDA said NO.
It was not an approved drug.
Drug safety is IMPORTANT.
If you want to use untested drugs move to Somalia.
“Jay Tea,” Sociopath means someone who doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.
That doesn’t preclude sociopaths working together against everyone else. See: Republicon Party.
Colin, I do shop around for my kids’ medical needs. Or rather, the insurance company does it for me by setting rates it will reimburse for particular drugs or procedures. (Try paying out of pocket for dental – you’ll get charged a lot more than the insurance company gets billed for the same procedure.) And the company I work for shops around for the best insurance it can afford for its employees. That’s how the bleeding insurance industry works.
So you admit that you don’t shop around and instead rely on insurance companies to do it for you. But which does a better job of finding cost savings, the resources of a few insurance companies or millions of consumers each out in search of the best deal?
Dental insurance makes no sense and is a product of government tax policy. If everyone were forced to shop around for dental care it wouldn’t cost so much. Dental insurance is a particularly dumb form of insurance as most dental care is more preventative in nature and not urgent. It’s like relying on auto insurance to get your oil changed.
If you still don’t believe me then consider if we extended the insurance model. Do you think food insurance would result in increased or decreased costs? Clothing insurance? DVD insurance?
And yet, conservatives argue that having insurance somehow encourages people to what, spend lavishly on health care? Opt for procedures they don’t need just for grins?
It removes the incentive to shop around for the best price. For procedures that insurance doesn’t cover such as cosmetic surgery you don’t find cost inflation because people comparison shop. I would have thought that this is a rather obvious point.
And yes, it does make people overconsume. For example a couple of years ago I sprained my ankle playing soccer. I was reluctant to do anything about it other than ice it because I was pretty sure it was just a sprain. At my roommate’s urging I went to the emergency room to get a check for a possible break. I was given an X-ray that confirmed I was OK and a plastic brace. The bill was around $1,000 but of course insurance took care of it.
Now, if I had to pay for it myself you think I still would have gone to the emergency room? Hell no. I would have waited until the next day and seen a doctor or gone to an urgent care facility. Or checked to see how the pain was and maybe done nothing other than ice it.
I never said that corporations never consider the long term, only that they often focus on the short term, and that this can sometimes have serious detrimental repercussions beyond an individual corporation. Please see the causes of our recent financial crisis turned economic recession for examples.
You are, of course, pointing to a highly regulated industry as an example. Moody’s for example, which said that the tranches full of subprime loans were AAA rated, is a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, licensed by the SEC.
Sure, that’s dumb. And I’ve got a lot of other issues with how the FDA is run. But despite doing stupid things they’re still worth keeping around. In fact, we might even be able to change how the FDA is run! Pretty cool, huh?
Why are they still worth keeping around? Where is the evidence? If I want to take an unlicensed drug why shouldn’t I have that right?
Colin: Where is the evidence of this? I think the FDA is a particularly bad example, especially when they withhold drugs to terminally ill patients because they haven’t been approved. Where is the sense in that?
Yes, the FDA has been slow to approve the use of some drugs. So would you have us do away with them entirely because they aren’t perfect?
That will work well the next time you try to use Dr Flimflam’s Patented Elixir to cure all your ills.
“licensed by the SEC.”
Under right wing rule the SEC became mostly meaningles because the right wingers in charge refused to exercise the oversight that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC.gov) had the responsibility to oversee.
Part of the problem was that Republican Bush deliberately took SEC overseers off the job overseeing domestic financial houses and put them in charge of tracking “terrorist” funding and then Republican Bush ‘conveniently’ (actually: strategically) never replaced those SEC overseers.
So: when right wingers are in charge of government they understaff crucial oversight positions and they undermine the oversight those oversight positions are by law supposed to exercise and then when that oversight agency ‘fails’, right wingers claim that it’s time to scrap all of the oversight.
Uhm, no.
It means that right wingers should never been in charge of government, becuase when right wingers are in charge of government, government does fail.
I put right wingers failure of governing down to right wingers just being failures at governing.
Others believe that right wingers failure at governing is a master plan in order to discredit governing itself.
Apparently right wing nutter “Colin” is using right wingers failure to govern as a way of discrediting governing.
The truth is that right wingers failure to govern just reveals that right wingers are failures at governing.
Yes, the FDA has been slow to approve the use of some drugs. So would you have us do away with them entirely because they aren’t perfect?
No, I would do away with them because they don’t do anything that the private sector couldn’t do better.
That will work well the next time you try to use Dr Flimflam’s Patented Elixir to cure all your ills.
Because when the government doesn’t license products they are inevitably terrible? Why would I buy a crappy product? Would I suddenly morph into a drooling idiot when it comes to buying medicine? If I had an illness I would look at what products were out there and which had received the best reviews and were made by companies with the best reputation.
Right winger “Colin”: “If I want to take an unlicensed drug why shouldn’t I have that right?”
It’s a perfect distillation of right wing sociopathy: A willingness to gamble with their own lives is used as an excuse to gamble with other people’s lives.
See: thalidomide babies from thread above.
If “Colin” wants to take “unlicensed drug[s]” he’s welcome to move to the Libertarian Paradise and do whatever crazy thing he wants.
Nobody’s forcing you to stay in America, “Colin”.
As a matter of fact, I firmly encourage you to leave.
Just leave your citizenship at the door.
“Colin” asks “Would I suddenly morph into a drooling idiot”…?
Suddenly?
Have you checked your logic circuit lately?
“Colin”: “If I had an illness I would look at what products were out there and which had received the best reviews and were made by companies with the best reputation.”
Because God Forbid there be an independent Science Agency checking to make sure that “Dr Flimflam’s Patented Elixir” didn’t, ooops, poison him.
Certainly no “companies” would ever be dishonest… oh, wait:
AIG, Enron, Worldcom, LTCM, Madoff Securities… and those are just some of the recent ultra doozie cons.
Your standard was “companies with the best reputation” and every one of those “companies” had EXCELLENT “reputation[s]“.
So did the AAA assets that were actually toxic waste.
All of those cons could have been prevented with sensible progressive regulation.
But Con Artist “Colin’s” objective is to clear the way for those cons.
Con Artist “Colin” is hoping that people have short memories.
Not today, “Colin”.
Uh-oh, everybody! Stand back! Newsy’s at the “putting scare quotes around people’s names” stage! Code red! Code red! Duck and cover! He’s gonna BLOW!!!!!
Seriously… does anyone have any idea what the FUCK he is trying to imply when “News Reference” starts putting quotes around people’s names?
And that whole “America — love it or leave it!” was stupid when it was right-wing nutjobs spouted it. Of all the philosophies to adapt from the right, Newsy, that was quite possibly the dumbest.
J.
The “” quotes around “names” is an acknowledgment that the person using the moniker is possibly a pseudonym.
I agree, it’s probably silly but it’s become a bit of a habit.
I didn’t mean to frighten you, “Jay Tea”.
It never occurred to me that the “quotes” would be read as “scare quotes.”
That’s a fair use, “Newsy.” But you only use it once you’re incensed. It takes you a while to work yourself up to it.
Your fabricated reason would be more plausible if you were the least bit consistent.
It is also rude — you yourself use a pseudonym, but you question others’ right to do so.
(In my case, it’s a nom de plume based on my own name that I’ve used as a shorthand for about half my life. It’s also the online persona I’ve established and used, consistently, for over five years.)
You are honest about one point, though — it’s a habit for you. It’s a habit you resort to when you start building up your childish temper.
J.
“My son’s asthma medication and my daughter’s annual visit to the pediatric cardiologist, are not optional.”
Colin: “And neither is food. But I imagine you still shop around for it.”
Comparing food and life-saving medicine just shows how stupid you are.
J.G.Thayer: “Wow, did Newsy just say, in essence, ‘America: love it or leave it?’ Man, haven’t heard that one since…”
Since 2004 when right wingers mockingly asked John Kerry why he didn’t move to France if he loved it so much.
The quotes irritated Sean D. Martin, so a few times I haven’t used “quotes” around his name and since it’s Oliver Willis’s blog I haven’t used “quotes” around his name.
Otherwise I’ve tried to be consistent with my writing “style”.
Maybe it’s my conservative streak. Get in a habit and it’s hard to “change.”
lol
“food and life-saving medicine”
Both make me grateful for the Pure Food and Drug Act:
http://google.com/search?q=Pure+Food+and+Drug+Act
But since this started as a thread on the banks, I want my legislators to bring back the Glass Steagall Act:
http://google.com/search?q=Glass+Steagall+Act
Likewise, we don’t need “hate crime” laws. We already have laws that forbid certain behaviors — such as murder and arson and the like. Two of the guys who killed James Bird got the death sentence, and the third cooperated with law enforcement for a life sentence. Likewise, the killers of Matthew Shepard were also convicted of murder.
But I thought the pubs believe that Matthew Shepherd’s murder was a hoax? You DO know the reason for hate crime laws, right? It allows such acts to be treated for what they are: a mass threat against a minority community. Last time I checked, making violent threats against someone was illegal.
Of course, Obama doesn’t agree with this. He’s already stated that the most important criteria for his next Supreme Court justice will be “empathy” and “compassion.”
Not jurisprudence or wisdom.
Me thinks there are some cases where empathy can be a good thing.
But I thought the pubs believe that Matthew Shepherd’s murder was a hoax?
Ok, I just realized that this comment was a tad over the line to say the least. I wish to apologize for it. The rest of my post still stands, though.
Brief video history on the predictable failures of bank deregulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_GSmQ0V4KE
brief and simple.
http://google.com/search?q=Republican+Shepard+hoax
http://google.com/search?q=Republican+Virginia+Fox+Shepard+hoax
Zython was wrong about being wrong.
Zython thought they were wrong once.
But they were wrong.
Me: “So you would have people sacrificed to the invisible hand of the market?
You are one sick fucker.”
Colin: “Glad you were able to read between the lines. I was afraid I was going to have to be more explicit about my desire for more dead people.”
And as if the invisible hand of the market saw a need…
Yesterday we learned that the local airline involved in a crash in February that killed 50 people was not training its pilots properly. They were not giving them hands on experience with vital safety features of the plans, and because of this the pilot in this case did not have the skills necessary to recover from a stall…
AND 50 PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT.
They didn’t give a fuck about safety, they did the absolute minimum required by the government regulations.
That’s exactly what we said.
Jay Tea: <i.Of course, Obama doesn’t agree with this. He’s already stated that the most important criteria for his next Supreme Court justice will be “empathy” and “compassion.”
Not jurisprudence or wisdom.
Jay Tea, ladies and gents. Demonstrating, once again, his unwillingness to listen to anything more than the edited version taken to support right wing talking points.
—
News Ref: The quotes irritated Sean D. Martin, so a few times I haven’t used “quotes” around his name
No they didn’t. You used quotes around my name, one which I thought was pretty clearly not an alias, and I told you it is in fact my real name. (I’m kinda adamant about putting my name on my words. I don’t care for those who insist on hiding behind online aliases.) In other words, you made a mistaken assumption and I corrected you. No irritation involved.
Me: “This is a fucking lie. It is a fucking lie told by liars who don’t want the government competing with private companies, because they know the government would win in many cases.”
Colin: “You’re right. Everything I said is a lie. …”
“The fiscal calamity that is Medicare and Social Security is a delusion.”
You realize Medicare and SS have lower overhead than private equivalents? You do know this, right? You are not just spouting bullshit talking points, right?
“…The USPS is better than either Fedex or UPS.”
Do you ever use FedEx to mail a birthday card?
Also, as I pointed out above, Canada Post is running a profit, and has for years and years and years.
Your assertion that government can’t run a business efficiently is a lie.
“And I’m the idiot.”
Yes. Yes you are.
You rely on talking points and not facts.
Jay Tea do you really think it’s a good idea to gobafter someone on style points after you’ve once again completely fucked up a basic fact, upon which you hung a good part of your argument?
Fafaroo: “Jay Tea do you really think it’s a good idea to gobafter someone on style points after you’ve once again completely fucked up a basic fact, upon which you hung a good part of your argument?”
That pretty much sums up J.G.Thayer’s debating here.
Comparing food and life-saving medicine just shows how stupid you are.
Your inability to offer a substantive response likewise speaks volumes about you.
Yesterday we learned that the local airline involved in a crash in February that killed 50 people was not training its pilots properly. They were not giving them hands on experience with vital safety features of the plans, and because of this the pilot in this case did not have the skills necessary to recover from a stall…
But wait, I thought government regulation was supposed to prevent that?
Or maybe the corporations outsourced their risk management to the government and just decided to follow regulation instead of thinking critically about their safety needs.
You realize Medicare and SS have lower overhead than private equivalents? You do know this, right? You are not just spouting bullshit talking points, right?
You do realize that this doesn’t change the fact that both are fiscally unsound to the tune of trillions of dollars right?
Do you ever use FedEx to mail a birthday card?
Well, no, given that such an activity would be freakin’ illegal. You’d think that the efficient government-run USPS would have no problem with competition in delivering first class mail. Funny, that.
Also, as I pointed out above, Canada Post is running a profit, and has for years and years and years.
Good for them. But the USPS doesn’t. And the standard shouldn’t be whether they turn a profit, but whether they do it better than the private sector. If USPS performed better than the private sector then people would rely exclusively on them for shipping packages instead of Fedex and UPS.
Your assertion that government can’t run a business efficiently is a lie.
A brief history of communism would indicate otherwise. Or the USPS. Or Amtrak. Or British Telecom. Or British Airways. Indeed, if state owned companies perform so well then why has the trend over the past 30 years been towards privatization rather than nationalization?
You rely on talking points and not facts.
No, sorry, this just isn’t true. Medicare’s fiscal crisis is FACT. The decline of family farms and increase in subsidies and manpower of the Ag Dept is FACT. The failure of the war on drugs is FACT. Amtrak’s consistent losses are FACT. Losses by the USPS are FACT. Public housing being epicenters of social malfunction is FACT. The failure of ethanol is FACT. The inferior performance of public schools is FACT. The fact that government can’t even balance its books with a national debt that continues to grow is FACT.
You are the one armed with nothing more than talking points, closing his eyes, plugging and ears and screaming “Liar!” at the top of his lungs in the hope that it will stave off reality.
“…I thought government regulation was supposed to prevent that [plane crashes]?”
Are we talking about the plane crash I heard about on the radio where the pilots were chatting about their personal lives when the gubmint regulations explicitly stated that under the conditions the pilots were in (I believe it was flying under 10,000 feet) they were required to strictly keep their conversations to piloting the plane?
Or was that a different plane crash where the private aircraft folk were caught explicitly disobeying regulations that would have prevented a plane crash?
If the libertarians were serious they would take a principled stand against ALL government mandated licensing, starting with the most pervasive license of them all: the license to drive a vehicle.
Are you a principled libertarian “Colin”?
Please explain your argument against requiring a license to drive a car.
Then you can explain your principled libertarian position against requiring a license to fly a plane.
I’m excited to think that once you’ve accomplished removing the plane flying licensing requirement that I will finally be able to live out my grade-school dream of piloting a plane!
And just think: Because there are no licensing requirements to fly a plane in the Somalia’s Libertarian Paradise, my plane flying dream will come true despite my not having any idea how to fly a plane other than what I learned playing the “Red Baron” aircraft video game!
Hooray For Libertarianism!
Do you ever use FedEx to mail a birthday card?
Right winger “Colin”: Well, no, given that such an activity would be freakin’ illegal.
You’ve told some dumb falsehoods “Colin” but this is especially goofy.
There’s nothing illegal about FedEx’ing a birthday card.
You have become so accustomed to making up stuff up, “Colin”, that it’s just a habit at this point.
By any chance was it under Republican President Bush that the government post office stopped making a profit?
I was sure that I read that the USPS had been making profits for years and years.
Or is this another one of “Colin’s” classic right wing ploys of throwing out so many falsehoods it would take a professional team of fact checkers to keep up with him?
“Colin”, you aren’t a credible source for ANYTHING anymore. You’ve told so many falsehoods that everything you say needs to be fact checked now.
Falsehoods have become so typical of Right Wingers these days, especially of libertarians, that it’s a wonder anyone takes anything they say serious. Clearly the right understands it’s base better than I do.
Right Winger “Colin” is so cute. He first says that ‘gubmint bad’ because it can’t do anything right.
When provided evidence his assertion is false, he changes the subject.
When it’s pointed out to right winger “Colin” that a government can actually run a business at a profit, “Colin” then moves the goal posts even farther, “Colin”: “the standard shouldn’t be whether they turn a profit, but whether they do it better than the private sector.”
“Colin”, just admit that right wingers like yourself have no “standard” other than destroying MY American Government and you will use any deceit or attack that you can conceive of.
Why do you hate America, “Colin”?
“Why do you hate America, “Colin”?”
Actually, I’m certain the answer to that is that America prevents predators like “Colin” from preying on the weak and the trusting.
“Colin” clearly takes the position of wanting an American government that is small enough to drown in a bathtub.
I’m sure the Taliban would agree with you in that regard, “Colin.”
Newsy, Colin (I’m sorry — “Colin”) was being accurate. Pedantic, but accurate.
One does not “mail” something via FedEx. That would be illegal — for FedEx to deliver mail, via mailboxes, using stamps. One could “ship” a birthday card via FedEx. In fact, many people do — when it absolutely HAS to get there next day. They pay through the nose for it, but when they’re affluent enough and procrastinated to the point where they can’t rely on the postal service to deliver it on time, they will.
And for Colin’s point: again, you are deliberately misrepresenting it. (That means “lying.”) There were regulations that applied to that landing approach; they weren’t followed. Whether the lack of training was the primary cause or not, the off-topic chatter certainly could have played a role.
So we have people who know the laws, and chose to break them. What’s the solution?
MORE LAWS, OF COURSE!!!!!!
Newsy is apparently one of those people who thinks that just because you pass a law, the problem goes away. How’s that working with drugs? With underage drinking? With speeding?
And if it doesn’t work, you pass more laws. Because it’s critical that you at least LOOK like you’re doing something.
The airline, as Colin pointed out, didn’t impose its own training standards. It “outsourced” them to the government, and the pilot had met the federal standards. That they weren’t sufficient in this case isn’t the airline’s legal responsibility — they followed the law to the letter.
And Newsy, let’s take a look at your use of quotes on people’s names just in this thread:
“Colin”, make a list of what parts of the government you would cut.
“Haplo9″ you seem to have an awful lot of faith in sociopathic predators who would sell me poison and then skip out for Dubai while hiding the loot of their Cayman Islands “business” in secret Swiss bank accounts.
“Haplo9″ you seem to have an awful lot of contempt for the American Democratic Republic of “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity[.]”
“Haplo9″, are you one of Republican John McCain foreign lobbyists?
Since “Colin” doesn’t like America’s democratic republican, he should try Somalia’s Libertarian Paradise.
“Colin”: “a list of all the things it [government] does well” … “Shouldn’t take you very long.”
Government minimizes the possibility that people like you, “Colin”, can poison my water, air, and food.
The biggest reason I support a strong government is to protect me from people like YOU, “Colin,” you are a con artist, a liar, and a predator.
“Haplo9″: “… you should have a say in how a business is run, even if you have nothing to do with the company. Why?”
Because sociopaths like yourself, “Haplo9″, poisoned my countries food, water, air, and soil, and then sold my neighbors kids poisonous lead painted toys.
Look, “Haplo9″, I understand that “your perfect [right wing] country” is one where companies can pollute the air, water, soil, and sell me poisoned food without any consequences.
In “your perfect [right wing] country”, “Haplo9″, you could sell my neighbors kids poisoned toys without any consequences.
And in “your perfect [right wing] country”, “Haplo9″, usury is legal.
Clearly you and “Colin” and most of the other right wing trolls that show up here disagree with me.
“Haplo9″, you are saying government regulating business is NOT okay.
“Haplo9″ even pulls the “Colin” and “Jay Tea” con artist trick of redefining words to meet their right wing fantasy world.
Clearly in “Haplo9’s” right wing fantasy world only the ARCHAIC definition applies.
So all of you reading this wondering what the hell gives the credit card companies the “right” to arbitrarily double your interest rate, well, it’s right wing economic theorists like “Haplo9″ who changed the law to benefit the credit card companies while screwing nearly every citizen that uses a credit card.
And as for mind reading, let me guess, “Haplo9″, would you also be in favor of the euphemistically mislabeled “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” aka: TORTURE?
“ed’s” graphic:
Doh. That graph was “Zython’s” contribution.
“ed” offered the YouTube video clip to Monty Python’s Life of Brien bit where they discussed “What have the Romans ever done for us”?
Right winger “Haplo9″ starts off demeaning the government of We the People by dismissing it as “magical government bureaucrats” and only after being confronted for taking an absurd and offensive position does he suddenly decide that he was misunderstood and even then only is able to concede that “regulation, as an approach, has some significant drawbacks”.
Which regulations, “Haplo9″? The regulations that prevent big companies from poisoning the air, water, soil, or food? The regulations that prevent corporations from selling products that blow up in the faces of consumers?
In the predatory right wing world of “Haplo9’s” imagination, banks should be allowed to charge unconscionable interest rates because ? “loan shark“!
Right wing predator “Haplo9″ is like a bad Saturday Night Live skit that just won’t go away.
Apparently con artists “Colin” and “Jay Tea” took the day off.
This should be simple enough for even “Haplo9″ to digest, but they aren’t about the discussion of ideas, they are here to fanatically push a failed right wing economic fantasy.
Right winger “Haplo9’s” predatory con artistry reveals a particularly pernicious type of right winger logic here:
“Haplo9″: The whole point of risk is that you don’t know the outcome in advance…
And, as it has done before, government and taxpayers are left to pick up the pieces (mashed potatoes in the mud?) while the predatory right wing con artists that “Haplo9″ is covering for abscond with the loot.
“Haplo9″: It just seems unlikely to me that major lenders could reasonably assume bailouts would occur.
Right winger “Haplo9″ is absurdly dishonest.
None of it’s addressed. Instead the entire compiled list that repudiates “Haplo9’s” absurd positions is just ignored.
The “holes” in “Haplo9’s” opinions are so numerous that the Swiss cheese metaphor is completely inverted.
And so now “Colin” the Con Artist has added his ever deceitful voice to that of “Haplo9’s” sociopathic predaciousness.
Tell US again, “Colin” how a 60% reduction in unemployment is ‘nothing to write home about.’
Or my favorite “Colin’ism”: how 99 and 10 are the same because they are both “double digits”.
Hey, “Colin”, explain again how the “welfare capitalism” nation of Norway which has a higher per capita GDP than US as well as lower infant mortality and longer lifespans proves ? ?
Your arguments aren’t quite as absurd as “Haplo9’s” but their end result is just as deceitful.
So how much did you get for selling out America to China, “Colin”?
Right wing con artist “Colin” is “in favor of privatizing air traffic control”
“Colin’s” right wing solutions to a ’self-regulating market’ is: “if a company was known for its planes crashing frequently who would fly them?”
“Colin” wants to gamble lives, not just the flyers, but anyone that might get hit by plane debris, for his magic market.
Isn’t that how “Colin”-logic works?
Correcting right winger “Colin”:
If Republican voters ever figure out that Right Wingers like “Colin” and “Haplo9″ are fraudster con artists it will be the end of the Republican Party.
Unfortunately, “Libertarians” like “Colin” are just sociopaths with sheep’s clothing.
“Colin” redundantly repeats falsehoods and when called on it, he just trots out more falsehoods.
“Colin’s” right wing magical philosophy has never been used by a successful nation.
“Colin’s” “Libertarian” pseudo-philosophy, as it’s currently constituted, is actually what hurts nations.
Libertarians like “Colin” are welcome to move to the Libertarian Paradise with my blessing.
Just make sure to leave your citizenship at the door, “Colin.”
“Colin” is a perfect representative of the THE NEW LIBERTARIANS: WILLING TO RISK OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES for their sociopathic greed.
Following right winger “Colin” in a thread is like following an elephant around.
To everyone that has gone out of their way to clean up “Colin’s” crap, corrected his falsehoods, corrected his misrepresentations, corrected his half-truths, and corrected his out right lies, bless you all.
It’s nasty, dirty work cleaning up after right wingers like “Colin’s” bullshit but it has to be done or right wing deceivers will lie the country into stupid again.
Right winger “Colin”: “I think the FDA is a particularly bad example, especially when they withhold drugs”
Just how sick are you, “Colin”?
“Jay Tea,” Sociopath means someone who doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.
Right winger “Colin”: “If I want to take an unlicensed drug why shouldn’t I have that right?”
If “Colin” wants to take “unlicensed drug[s]” he’s welcome to move to the Libertarian Paradise and do whatever crazy thing he wants.
Nobody’s forcing you to stay in America, “Colin”.
“Colin” asks “Would I suddenly morph into a drooling idiot”…?
“Colin”: “If I had an illness I would look at what products were out there and which had received the best reviews and were made by companies with the best reputation.”
But Con Artist “Colin’s” objective is to clear the way for those cons.
Con Artist “Colin” is hoping that people have short memories.
Not today, “Colin”.
I didn’t mean to frighten you, “Jay Tea”.
Are you a principled libertarian “Colin”?
Right winger “Colin”: Well, no, given that such an activity would be freakin’ illegal.
You’ve told some dumb falsehoods “Colin” but this is especially goofy.
You have become so accustomed to making up stuff up, “Colin”, that it’s just a habit at this point.
Let’s compare Newsy’s uses of quote marks with people’s names with, say, this example:
They insist that the “discussion” start from their position of “regulation” having “problems”.
Purely a coincidence, I’m sure…
J.
Newsy, I generally don’t respond to your lunatic rantings, but I will make an exception this time.
Regarding sending first class mail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Competitors
FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) directly compete with USPS express mail and package delivery services, making nationwide deliveries of urgent letters and packages. Due to the postal monopoly, they are not allowed to deliver non-urgent letters and may not use U.S. Mail boxes at residential and commercial destinations.
Really, it’s like doing the lord’s work around here sometimes, shining a light of truth into a dark cave of ignorance.
Oh, and regarding the plane flight, I’ll note that the pilot failed three federal pilot tests but the company that hired him was unable to see this due to federal privacy laws.
Score another one for the feds.
Geez, Newsy, even for you this is sad:
I was sure that I read that the USPS had been making profits for years and years.
No, the USPS has been LOSING money for years and years. Every time the numbers come in red, they raise the rates — and the numbers keep turning up red.
J.
Oh, and fafaroo, thanks for the correction on Bartley-Fox. I got that confused with a PROPOSED gun-control bill that would have increased penalties for the use of a gun.
It’s still true, though, that Massachusetts has NO fucking clue how to deal with violent crime. Their last move was to try to ban gun shows here in New Hampshire…
J.
Colin, that would explain why all FedEx packaging has “URGENT” pre-printed on it…
J.
lol, “Jay Tea,” now THAT’S what I’d call stalking.
No, Newsy, it’s called “cutting and pasting.”
And that’s just from THIS comment thread. You put all that out here, I just concatenated it into one single batch.
It was kind of fascinating, though, watching you progress from arrogance to outrage to near-psychosis as Colin simply refused to submit to your delusions. I’d seen it plenty of times before with you, but never put it all together — I could almost see the spittle forming on your mouth as you worked yourself into a full frothing frenzy.
It reminded me of the last time I saw a six-year-old throw a temper tantrum, but less cute.
J.
“Jay Tea”: “So we have people who know the laws, and chose to break them. What’s the solution?
MORE LAWS, OF COURSE!!!!!!”
How about FOLLOWING the existing laws in the first place?
How about ENFORCING the existing laws in the first place?
And if you don’t like the Law, change it, that’s the part of the Law that right wingers conveniently forget is part of a Citizen Elected Representative Democracy.
Right wingers want to separate the American Citizen’s Government from some faceless bureaucratic entity.
I’ve faced off against faceless bureaucratic agencies before and it’s almost always a bigger headache than the DMV: The private phone corporations, the private insurance corporations, the private air liner corporations, every time a headache.
It’s ironic that right winger “Colin” would dismiss British Airways as some kind of failure of a “state owned” company.
Of the dozen or so different airlines I’ve flown, British Airways was absolutely hands down the best experience: It was the most comfortable flight and they had the best, most responsive customer service of any of the privately owned domestic airlines I’ve flown.
So if British Airways is government owned, that’s another of the scores of examples that “Colin” cites that actually cuts against his own argument.
Yes, “Jay Tea,” “Colin simply refused to” refute any of the factual evidence that repeatedly repudiated his fictions.
Instead he just flatly asserts falsehoods. Repeatedly.
So do you and “Haplo9,” “Jay Tea.”
It’s possible that you all are crazy or dumb enough to believe in the fictions you keep pushing.
I at least do you all the courtesy of assuming that you aren’t crazy or dumb.
To me you are just unethical.
Would you prefer everyone think you are just crazy? Or just dumb?
“Jay Tea”: “Purely a coincidence, I’m sure…”
Hmmmmm.
Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
Oh, and Jay Tea, you’re joking with this shit, right?
You confused a PROPOSED bill with a law that was passed 30 years ago?
And let’s remember that the reason you brought it up was not to prove “that Massachusetts has NO fucking clue how to deal with violent crime.” You brought it up as evidence that it’s better to enforce existing laws than to write new ones. Indeed, you wrote:
Not only did you not know what the Bartley-Fox law was, you offered zero evidence of it’s enforcement.
Of course, how could you? You don’t even know what law you’re talking about.
But instead of offering any actual evidence or research for your claims you go on and on and on about News Reference putting quotes around people’s aliases.
typical.
It’s still true, though, that Massachusetts has NO fucking clue how to deal with violent crime. Their last move was to try to ban gun shows here in New Hampshire…
Count on Jay ID Tea to deliberately misstate what happened.
Additionally, MA has a pretty good record WRT violent crime. It ranks below the national average and its violent crime rates have fallen over the past 14 years by over 20%.
So, if MA has no clue as to what they’re doing…it appears other states should emulate their example.
Right winger “Colin”: The “Medicare’s fiscal crisis” is an invention of right wing propagandists.
It could be immediately solved by raising taxes.
The “Medicare fiscal crisis” could also be alleviated, and probably even fixed, by eliminating or at least reducing the predatory overcharging of medical-corporations that chose profit over the health of Americans.
“Colin” asserts that’s not possible.
Voter’s clearly have been disagreeing since Medicare’s implementation.
“Colin” asserts falsehoods as facts.
When “Colin’s” falsehoods are revealed as “falsehoods” he changes the subject or he moves the goalposts.
Right wingers repudiation of solutions doesn’t mean solutions aren’t solutions, it just means that they don’t like those “solutions”.
“Solutions” can be “Good Things” OR “Bad Things.”
It’s ultimately a values question.
Right wingers don’t believe that it’s a good thing to have affordable medical care for those that would otherwise be unable to afford it without American taxpayer support.
Left wingers DO believe that it’s a good thing to have affordable medical care for those that would otherwise be unable to afford it without taxpayer support.
That’s a “value” that a conservative independent like me shares with the left: conserving the health of America’s grandparents.
Of the dozen or so different airlines I’ve flown, British Airways was absolutely hands down the best experience: It was the most comfortable flight and they had the best, most responsive customer service of any of the privately owned domestic airlines I’ve flown.
So if British Airways is government owned, that’s another of the scores of examples that “Colin” cites that actually cuts against his own argument.
British Airways is privately run. It was nationalized by the Labor party in 1974 and proceeded to lose money and offer poor customer service as is typical of state-owned companies. It was privatized in 1987 and is now a well functioning airline.
So, unless you flew between 1974-87 you are giving praise to a privately run company. Thus it cuts against your own argument.
In a thread about the disastrous consequences of deregulating banks, right winger “Colin” has said that he wanted to throw out the FDA.
When it’s pointed out that the FDA prevented the disastrous, global consequences of Thalidomide Babies from happening inside the US, right winger “Colin” ignores the evidence and changes the subject.
In a thread about the disastrous consequences of deregulating banks, right winger “Colin” has said that he wanted to throw out the FAA.
When it’s pointed out that the FAA has significantly reduced plane crashes, right winger “Colin” ignores the evidence and changes the subject.
In a thread about the disastrous consequences of deregulating banks, right winger “Colin” has said that he wanted to throw out mine safety laws.
When it’s pointed out that the mine safety laws have significantly reduced deaths and injuries from mines, right winger “Colin” ignores the evidence and changes the subject.
In a thread about the disastrous consequences of deregulating banks, right winger “Colin” has said that governments can’t run businesses.
When it’s pointed out that government run post offices around the world have been quite efficient and some governments even run the business of delivering mail at a profit, right winger “Colin” ignores the evidence and changes the subject.
Right Wingers: Regurgitate, Rinse, Repeat.
Sorry, this is just so incoherent I had to laugh:
Right winger “Colin”: The “Medicare’s fiscal crisis” is an invention of right wing propagandists.
It could be immediately solved by raising taxes.
Um, if there is no crisis then you shouldn’t have to do anything. If it’s a right-wing myth then we should be able to continue on the current path with no problems.
Right winger’s predatory ideology has been repeatedly shown to have disastrous consequences for America and Americans.
The only thing that the right wing has is a disastrous magical belief system, the pathological willingness to ignore the mountains of facts and evidence that repudiate their disastrous magical belief system, and the willingness to keep repeating the falsehoods of their disastrous right wing magical belief system.
It’s the Republicon Marketing Party.
Colin: Um, if there is no crisis then you shouldn’t have to do anything.
By that standard, every time a car approaches a red light it’s a crisis.
Right winger “Colin”: “if there is no crisis then you shouldn’t have to do anything“
Which is a clear difference between the right wing and the left wing:
The right wing will wait until a crisis before they do anything.
The left wing will solve a problem so it never becomes a crisis in the first place.
It’s why, as a conservative independent who’s conservative belief system includes trying to proactively avoid crises, I currently support the left wing.
When the right wing is in charge of government eventually there isn’t just one crisis there are multiple crises.
THE RIGHT WING’S PLAN IS HAVING CRISES.
That’s insane.
When the right wing stop being insane I’ll give them another look.
Um, if there is no crisis then you shouldn’t have to do anything.
My roof leaks. But only when it’s raining. When it isn’t raining, it doesn’t leak. So I don’t have to fix it.
Unless it rains.
But I don’t want to fix it when it’s raining. So I’ll wait ’til it stops.
And then it fixes itself.
Good plan.
Right wingers hate American Citizen’s Government.
The liberal government regulations prohibiting banks from becoming reckless gamblers was deregulated by the right wing and the liberals who predicted that it would have disastrous national financial consequences for America and Americans were ridiculed.
Liberals were right. Right wingers were wrong.
Now, with the clear evidence that the right wing deregulation of banks was directly part of the Greatest Financial Crisis since the Great Depression, right wingers are still selling the same CON that FUBAR’d America.
Maybe it’s wrong to call those right wingers predators and sociopaths but it’s hard to believe that anyone could be so stupid and fanatical to ignore the unremitting evidence of the failure of the right wing’s ideology.
In the end it’s just as bad for America and Americans to have stupid right wing fanatics in charge of our American government as predatory right wing sociopaths.
The result of right wing rule is always the same: Crises and Disasters.
My roof leaks. But only when it’s raining. When it isn’t raining, it doesn’t leak. So I don’t have to fix it.
This is an incredibly dumb analogy. If your roof leaks then it has a problem. But Medicare’s problems, we have been assured, are a myth and right-wing lie. There are no problems!
Of course, someone better tell that to Robert Reich who calls Medicare a “monster” and a “terrible [problem]“.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/05/the-truth-behind-the-social-se.php
Right winger “Colin”: “if there is no crisis then you shouldn’t have to do anything“
That’s the right wing’s magical belief system in a nutshell.
Right wingers:
‘Close down the Fire Departments because my house isn’t on fire.’
Right wingers:
‘Close down the Police Departments because I’m not being robbed.’
Right wingers:
‘Close down the Ambulance Services because I’m not having a medical emergency.’
Right wingers:
‘Eliminate the Pure Food and Drug Act because I’m not being poisoned by poisoned food or impure drug prescriptions.’
Right wingers:
‘Eliminate the airplane regulations because my home isn’t being hit by large, fiery planes cratering into my home.’
Right wingers:
‘Eliminate the mine safety laws because I didn’t die from a mine accident.’
Right wingers:
‘Eliminate the banking regulation laws because, because, well because, ME, ME, ME…‘
Right wing: Regurgitate, Rinse, Repeat.
By that standard, every time a car approaches a red light it’s a crisis.
This makes no sense and is not at all analogous.
Just answer this: If there is no crisis then why do we need a tax increase? If everything is just ducky then why do we need to take more money from taxpayers?
Me, “News Reference”: The “Medicare fiscal crisis” could also be alleviated, and probably even fixed, by eliminating or at least reducing the predatory overcharging of medical-corporations that chose profit over the health of Americans.
Robert Reich: “Social Security is a tiny problem. Medicare is a terrible one, but the problem is not really Medicare; it’s quickly rising health-care costs. Look more closely and the real problem isn’t even health-care costs; it’s a system that pushes up costs by rewarding inefficiency, causing unbelievable waste, pushing over-medication, providing inadequate prevention, over-using emergency rooms because many uninsured people can’t afford regular doctor checkups, and spending billions on advertising and marketing seeking to enroll healthy people and avoid sick ones.”
Robert Reich is talking about PRIVATE medical-corporation’s predatory overcharging.
Eliminate the PRIVATE medical-corporation’s predatory overcharging and much of the problem with Medicare is alleviated, possibly even eliminated.
Private medical-corporation’s predatory overcharging will always happen unless there is an alternative of government offering a general health care plan.
That doesn’t eliminate private medical insurance.
But it does force the predatory overcharging of medical corporations to compete with a health care provider who has the interest of the American Citizens as it’s first responsibility and not the predatory objective of making a quick ‘buck.’
That’s what the private, predatory medical-corporations are afraid of: Competition from the American’s Citizen Government that has the best, long term interests of the American Citizens in mind and isn’t beholden to corporate predators trying to make a quick “buck”.
And for the record, there has never been a prohibition from buying private medical insurance in any of the health care plans offered by the left.
Yes, right winger “Colin”, the “Medicare’s fiscal crisis” is an invention of right wing propagandists serving the interests of predatory corporations.
Colin: If there is no crisis then why do we need a tax increase? If everything is just ducky then why do we need to take more money from taxpayers?
Crisis: a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger
My understanding is that Medicare has a projected crisis, but is not currently in crisis.
Just like a driver of the car can apply the brakes to keep their car from running a red light, taxes can be raised to avoid a crisis in Medicare.
As for why we should make sure Medicare doesn’t go into crisis, I won’t bother going into, because I’m pretty sure you’ll just say that elderly without incomes beyond social security would be better off paying for private insurance.
Guess what? They could have known the risk. They should have known the risk.
They knew the risk. They chose not to care.
Pr[Ta<1,Tb<1]=ø2(ø-1(Fa(1)), ø-1(Fb(1)),y
Newsy rants:
Eliminate the PRIVATE medical-corporation’s predatory overcharging and much of the problem with Medicare is alleviated, possibly even eliminated.</i.
So you concede there is a problem. But you also say the problems are a right-wing myth.
*head explodes*
No, Colin. He (and most everybody else who isn’t a right-wing Free ballin’ capitalist running pig-dog) is saying that there is, or will be, a problem. Left unaddressed, the problem will get bigger. The problem is not quite as dire as Bill-0 and pals would have us believe.
Crisis: a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger
My understanding is that Medicare has a projected crisis, but is not currently in crisis.
In my original post — which you have to scroll way up for — I said that Medicare was headed for a reckoning. So yes, the crisis is coming — and more rapidly than first thought:
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/05/11/daily48.html
Trust funds that support Medicare and Social Security have eroded due to the recession and will run out of money earlier than expected, government officials say.
Medicare, the government health care program for seniors, is projected to run out of money in 2017, two years earlier than previously predicted, according to the 2009 annual report by program trustees.</i.
Whether you want to define this as a crisis or not is your call. But the fact that the program is projected to run out of money in 8 years probably strikes a lot of people as a big deal.
Of course the answer being offered is yet a higher percentage of our income.
The problem is not quite as dire as Bill-0 and pals would have us believe.
So you acknowledge that a problem exists, which is the whole point.
Classic right wing con artist “Colin” cites a Robert Reich article on Medicare that offers a clear solution to what “Colin” asserts is Medicare’s “crisis”, but “Colin” then ignores the solution offered in his own citation.
Instead of addressing the solution in his own citation, “Colin” decides to assert “the answer being offered is yet a higher percentage of our income.”
WHOSE INCOME, “Colin”?
The medical-corporation executives whose predatory overcharging has created the problem?
Yes, if medical-corporations minimized or were prohibited from predatory overcharging, then, yes, medical-corporation executives income would be reduced.
And American Citizens would be HEALTHIER for it.
And HEALTHCARE COSTS WOULD BE LOWER.
Ultimately, “Colin” is a perfect example of the right wing’s pathological indifference to America and Americans, even American’s health.
Right wing/libertarian/Republican/conservative/shapeshifters work for predatory corporation’s interests.
Left wing/Democratic/liberals work for American Citizen’s interests.
I’ll chose American Citizen’s every time.
But I’m patriotic that way.
MORE LAWS, OF COURSE!!!!!!
So the solution, of course is:
ABOLISH LAWS!!!!!111!!11one!1
This is fun.
the problem goes away. How’s that working with drugs?
You tell me, I’m in favor of legalizing pot.
Just answer this: If there is no crisis then why do we need a tax increase? If everything is just ducky then why do we need to take more money from taxpayers?
Because new technologies and drugs are expensive? But hey, we can just have priests exorcize demons from sick patients, would expand Bush’s Faith-based initiatives more.
Zython was wrong about being wrong.
Didn’t say I was wrong, just that I was being too vindictive.
Me: “Yesterday we learned that the local airline involved in a crash in February that killed 50 people was not training its pilots properly. They were not giving them hands on experience with vital safety features of the plans, and because of this the pilot in this case did not have the skills necessary to recover from a stall…”
Colin: “But wait, I thought government regulation was supposed to prevent that?
Or maybe the corporations outsourced their risk management to the government and just decided to follow regulation instead of thinking critically about their safety needs.”
So what you are saying is that with government regulations, corporations will do the absolute minimum.
But without government regulations, corporations will be more concerned with safety.
You are too fucking stupid to talk to.
Please fuck off.
Me: “You are too fucking stupid to talk to.
Please fuck off.”
Wow. It appears Colin took my advice and as run away from his own stupidity.