PDA

View Full Version : Regulation is Just Too Expensive



cccasooner2
7/11/2011, 03:04 PM
Obama seeing the light. :)


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-orders-removal-of-cnnm-2802034740.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

Says we can save more than a $1 billion in annual regulatory costs. A man of genius.

dynersooner
7/11/2011, 03:11 PM
i thot this was about the EPL. GO QUEENS PARK RANGERS!!!

BigTip
7/11/2011, 03:21 PM
I have said this forever to anyone that will listen. Any time a regulation is passed it costs the economy. It costs business more to comply, it costs government more to make sure business is complying.

Simple simple economics.

dynersooner
7/11/2011, 03:26 PM
I have said this forever to anyone that will listen. Any time a regulation is passed it costs the economy. It costs business more to comply, it costs government more to make sure business is complying.

Simple simple economics.

you said what, to who???

BigTip
7/11/2011, 03:27 PM
you said what, to who???

You have to LISTEN!

My Opinion Matters
7/11/2011, 03:28 PM
NOTHING BAD EVER COMES FROM DEREGULATION!!!:texan:

dynersooner
7/11/2011, 03:30 PM
You have to LISTEN!

I AM!!! all i can heard is my processor whirrrring.

whiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

pphilfran
7/11/2011, 04:18 PM
I have said this forever to anyone that will listen. Any time a regulation is passed it costs the economy. It costs business more to comply, it costs government more to make sure business is complying.

Simple simple economics.

Wrong...the fed fails to increase audits so it doesn't cost a penny more...

See BP oil spill...

See derivatives...

BigTip
7/11/2011, 04:18 PM
I AM!!! all i can heard is my processor whirrrring.

whiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

http://www.ght.org.uk/userfiles/image/webgeneral/Shout-iStock166319.jpg

cccasooner2
7/11/2011, 04:46 PM
Wrong...the fed fails to increase audits so it doesn't cost a penny more...

See BP oil spill...

See derivatives...

Well, yeah, but, ......um, um..., they still have those same papers to shuffle (not to mention those long daily sh*t breaks).

Howzit
7/11/2011, 04:48 PM
:les: AND THE BANKS WILL REGULATE THEMSELVES!!!

The
7/11/2011, 04:49 PM
:les: AND THE BANKS WILL REGULATE THEMSELVES!!!


What? I cannay hear you.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 04:55 PM
$1.499 trillion left to cut. He and Congress should just keep this.

badger
7/11/2011, 05:07 PM
A liberal friend said that he thought Obama was acting like a Republican. I think I would have died laughing if not for my extreme composure as a guest, thinking to how many Republicans on here strongly dislike Obama.

Remembering how much W. spent and spent and Repubs remarking how they thought he was acting a little bit too liberal for their tastes, and remembering how much Democrats loved to hate W., it's like everything is coming full circle.

W - a liberal Republican whom Democrats hate.
Obama - a conservative Democrat who Republicans hate.

Hmm...

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 05:14 PM
A liberal friend said that he thought Obama was acting like a Republican. I think I would have died laughing if not for my extreme composure as a guest, thinking to how many Republicans on here strongly dislike Obama.

Remembering how much W. spent and spent and Repubs remarking how they thought he was acting a little bit too liberal for their tastes, and remembering how much Democrats loved to hate W., it's like everything is coming full circle.

W - a liberal Republican whom Democrats hate.
Obama - a conservative Democrat who Republicans hate.

Hmm...
I've heard more than a few liberals disappointed in Obama because he's not liberal enough too.

TheLadiesMike
7/11/2011, 06:33 PM
Every President does this. But new regulations are being created all the time.

http://www.regulations.gov

Along the middle bar click Newly Posted Regulations
Today = 103
Last week = 603
Last month = 2,216
Last year = 24,527

jkjsooner
7/11/2011, 06:37 PM
I have said this forever to anyone that will listen. Any time a regulation is passed it costs the economy. It costs business more to comply, it costs government more to make sure business is complying.

Simple simple economics.

And how much does a massive f'in bailout cost because we failed to regulate the financial industry?

Midtowner
7/11/2011, 06:43 PM
Regulation creates jobs. Gotta have folks in compliance and you gotta have regulators--and typically, these are pretty good jobs.

BigTip
7/11/2011, 06:54 PM
Regulation creates jobs. Gotta have folks in compliance and you gotta have regulators--and typically, these are pretty good jobs.

Government jobs do not add to the economy. It takes money out of the economic cycle.

If you want to create false jobs, just pull a FDR and create a WPA.

jkjsooner...Are you serious? The banks were over regulated to a point that free market checks and balances were unable to work.

My Opinion Matters
7/11/2011, 07:17 PM
Government jobs do not add to the economy. It takes money out of the economic cycle.

If you want to create false jobs, just pull a FDR and create a WPA.

jkjsooner...Are you serious? The banks were over regulated to a point that free market checks and balances were unable to work.

Are you willfully dishonest, or actually dumb?

Blue
7/11/2011, 07:20 PM
And how much does a massive f'in bailout cost because we failed to regulate the financial industry?

NOTHING if you're not a socialist/fascist.

BigTip
7/11/2011, 07:23 PM
Are you willfully dishonest, or actually dumb?

Wow. Name calling already? No rebuttal, just "you are dumb".

Excellent.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 07:24 PM
NOTHING if you're not a socialist/fascist.

You're not a socialist or fascist. Did it cost you anything?

My Opinion Matters
7/11/2011, 07:30 PM
Wow. Name calling already? No rebuttal, just "you are dumb".

Excellent.

No rebuttal. I'm not looking for civilized debate. You would think I'm brand new to the internet, because I am sometimes still legitimately surprised by the asinine things some people believe. I apologize that your aggressive disdain for reality evoked such a visceral response from me.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 07:32 PM
Government jobs do not add to the economy. It takes money out of the economic cycle.

If you want to create false jobs, just pull a FDR and create a WPA.

jkjsooner...Are you serious? The banks were over regulated to a point that free market checks and balances were unable to work.

Please define these terms for me. I hold an economics degree and I never have heard of any of these concepts before. You can cut/paste from an actual mainstream or Austrian economist if you want, but cite your sources:

how government jobs subtract from the economy
economic cycle
false jobs
free market checks and balances

I'm going to take a guess and say that you think fractional reserve banking is a Ponzi scheme and would like the required reserve ratio to be at 100%. Am I correct?

StoopTroup
7/11/2011, 07:33 PM
Obamacare is gonna get me some new Glasses so I can enjoy a stroll in the park. Who says growing old sucks? Time for a swim?

tL6SAS2tFus&feature=related

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 07:38 PM
Wrong...the fed fails to increase audits so it doesn't cost a penny more...

See BP oil spill...

See derivatives... They failed to comply with regulations already in place. Thats what they got fined over.

Blue
7/11/2011, 07:39 PM
You're not a socialist or fascist. Did it cost you anything?

Taxes right? Debt? Inflation? Who pays for the bailout?

If bailouts are harmless lets give every company all the way down to a LLC a hundred billion. I'd be all for it.

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 07:41 PM
Please define these terms for me. I hold an economics degree and I never have heard of any of these concepts before. You can cut/paste from an actual mainstream or Austrian economist if you want, but cite your sources:

how government jobs subtract from the economy
economic cycle
false jobs
free market checks and balances

I'm going to take a guess and say that you think fractional reserve banking is a Ponzi scheme and would like the required reserve ratio to be at 100%. Am I correct?We are paying for way too many red tape paper shufflers.

You don't need a degree to figure that one out.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 07:44 PM
Taxes right? Debt? Inflation? Who pays for the bailout?

If bailouts are harmless lets give every company all the way down to a LLC a hundred billion. I'd be all for it.

Read your post again. It must have cost me something since you probably think I am a socialist. It will, but it's gonna cost me a lot less than first expected.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 07:46 PM
We are paying for way too many red tape paper shufflers.

You don't need a degree to figure that one out.

What does this have to do with my post? :confused:

Blue
7/11/2011, 07:48 PM
Read your post again. It must have cost me something since you probably think I am a socialist. It will, but it's gonna cost me a lot less than first expected.

I was saying that it wouldn't cost a thing if our country hadn't "abandoned free market principles to save the free market" as our pres at the time so eloquently stated.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 07:56 PM
I was saying that it wouldn't cost a thing if our country hadn't "abandoned free market principles to save the free market" as our pres at the time so eloquently stated.
Why do we let it get to that point though? Should we just let those companies fail and instantaneously add 1M or so more unemployed? Do we bust up some of those companies a few years before they become "too big to fail?" How is this problem fixed? Can such a problem be fixed by "the free market" when the massive corporation keeps swallowing its competition?

Blue
7/11/2011, 08:10 PM
Well we had the dot.com/tech bust without any major catastrophes. Many lost their jobs, alot of homes and apartments in San Jose were vacant for awhile. But we got through it. New and better companies sprang up and people found another job.

Of course you could say Google and Microsoft have close to monopolies, but the consumer still has other options.

I don't think GM and Goldman sachs are too big to fail. The world would adapt and survive. They were too big to fail bc they are in the pockets of mostly every politician in DC.

It's really corrupt and transparent.

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 08:39 PM
What does this have to do with my post? :confused:

You said you have a degree in economics. I posted what nobody needs a degree to figure out. Thats what.

StoopTroup
7/11/2011, 08:41 PM
Egonomics>Economics?

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 08:43 PM
You said you have a degree in economics. I posted what nobody needs a degree to figure out. Thats what.

No, your post had nothing to do what anyone has said in this thread. It's just an interjection, a red herring.

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 08:51 PM
No, your post had nothing to do what anyone has said in this thread. It's just an interjection, a red herring.Yes, it did. What are you? The post police? :P

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 08:52 PM
Egonomics>Economics? Looks like it. :D

AlboSooner
7/11/2011, 08:54 PM
We are in this economical mess because of regulation.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 09:06 PM
Well we had the dot.com/tech bust without any major catastrophes. Many lost their jobs, alot of homes and apartments in San Jose were vacant for awhile. But we got through it. New and better companies sprang up and people found another job.
But there was a stimulus to help us get out. The Bush tax cuts were a part of that stimulus. Also, I'm not sure about this right now but I believe there wasn't anyone the size of Lehman Brothers, GM, or Bear Stearns ready to go belly up. There were no companies with the balance sheets the size of those 3 about to go out of business.


Of course you could say Google and Microsoft have close to monopolies, but the consumer still has other options.
Microsoft has already been broken up once and I believe the antitrust arm of the SEC has opened an investigation into Google. I would agree with you that Google is not a monopoly. Yahoo still exists and is going quite well, and the Android phone OS faces stiff competition from products by Windows and Apple.


I don't think GM and Goldman sachs are too big to fail. The world would adapt and survive. They were too big to fail bc they are in the pockets of mostly every politician in DC.
Of course, GM already got the "too big to fail" treatment from Obama. Since Goldman Sachs only main source of competition now is from MorganStanley, the entire investment banking industry might need a look-see. But yes, both GM and Goldman (especially the latter) have a ton of money and people in powerful positions in Washington.

tommieharris91
7/11/2011, 09:09 PM
Yes, it did. What are you? The post police? :P

Nope. I'm the logical fallacy police.

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 09:10 PM
We are in this economical mess because of regulation.

Well that and about 100 other reasons. Too many favors for campaign contributors coming out of our pockets, too many government paper shufflers and too many people sitting on their asses collecting unemployment because they can. My theory...if you absolutely just cant find a job working for someone else...then work for yourself. People create careers for themselves from talents and interests all the time and do very well. You could mow lawns and do landscaping, clean pools. Build waterfalls and fountains. Start a catering or food business if you're a good cook or can bake. Knock on doors to organize garages. At least get a vo-tech grant if you're just sitting on your *** all day then instead, go back to school to learn something new like in the medical field, even if just for a back-up, just in case job. They are always hiring and some of those degrees can be had in a couple of years. Hire some other unemployed people willing to work for a cut and start an office/residential cleaning service company. I have never lost my job and allowed that to be a reason to stop me from making money somehow. Do something.

My Opinion Matters
7/11/2011, 09:14 PM
If you guys are truly interested in an unregulated, anarchocapitalist free market then try Somalia. Let me know how the broadband is there.

Blue
7/11/2011, 09:22 PM
If you guys are truly interested in an unregulated, anarchocapitalist free market then try Somalia. Let me know how the broadband is there.

And if you're interested in printing money into Bolivia, try Zimbabwe. Let me know how far that dollar goes.:P

My Opinion Matters
7/11/2011, 09:24 PM
And if you're interested in printing money into Bolivia, try Zimbabwe. Let me know how far that dollar goes.:P

Let me reiterate, my only true agenda here is shenanigans.

MamaMia
7/11/2011, 09:26 PM
If you guys are truly interested in an unregulated, anarchocapitalist free market then try Somalia. Let me know how the broadband is there.There is regulation and then there is too much regulation. An example...If you're a doctor you must pay as exorbitant fee to the DEA to prescribe medication/narcotics. Then in most states you also have to pay the state where you practice for the exact same privilege. Here in Oklahoma its to an agency called the OBBND.

My Opinion Matters
7/11/2011, 09:36 PM
There is regulation and then there is too much regulation. An example...If you're a doctor you must pay as exorbitant fee to the DEA to prescribe medication/narcotics. Then in most states you also have to pay the state where you practice for the exact same privilege. Here in Oklahoma its to an agency called the OBBND.

I think extensive regulation of the right to dispense narcotics is probably a good thing.

jkjsooner
7/11/2011, 09:40 PM
Well we had the dot.com/tech bust without any major catastrophes. Many lost their jobs, alot of homes and apartments in San Jose were vacant for awhile. But we got through it. New and better companies sprang up and people found another job.

Relatively speaking, a tech bubble bust has minor impact outside of the tech industry. A financial industry bust impacts the entire worldwide economy. This is simply not a fair comparison.

Plus, in terms of an increase in the money supply, the housing bubble dwarfed anything we saw in the tech bubble.

Blue
7/11/2011, 09:47 PM
But there was a stimulus to help us get out. The Bush tax cuts were a part of that stimulus. Also, I'm not sure about this right now but I believe there wasn't anyone the size of Lehman Brothers, GM, or Bear Stearns ready to go belly up. There were no companies with the balance sheets the size of those 3 about to go out of business.


Microsoft has already been broken up once and I believe the antitrust arm of the SEC has opened an investigation into Google. I would agree with you that Google is not a monopoly. Yahoo still exists and is going quite well, and the Android phone OS faces stiff competition from products by Windows and Apple.


Of course, GM already got the "too big to fail" treatment from Obama. Since Goldman Sachs only main source of competition now is from MorganStanley, the entire investment banking industry might need a look-see. But yes, both GM and Goldman (especially the latter) have a ton of money and people in powerful positions in Washington.

I am 100% sure you know more about economics than I do. Hell, forgot almost all of any college course I ever took.

All I know is that what the govt and big banks across the world have going with each other stinks to high heaven.

DIB
7/11/2011, 09:53 PM
If the Big Banks had been allowed to fail, the economy would have already bottomed out and rebounded. Instead, the government gives money (much of which can't be accounted for) to organizations that failed. Then enacts regulations that hurt small and medium size banks, but have little real effect on those same large banks. All of which helps prolong the recession.

pphilfran
7/12/2011, 06:30 AM
They failed to comply with regulations already in place. Thats what they got fined over.

I think you missed the point...there was little or poor quality auditing that helped cause the disasters...

Midtowner
7/12/2011, 06:49 AM
Government jobs do not add to the economy. It takes money out of the economic cycle.

It's not just government jobs, which do add to the economy, as government workers also own homes and buy stuff; businesses have to spend billions to comply with regulation. A big part of that is paying compliance workers, safety inspectors, engineers, etc.

And there's also the fact that regulation protects the public from poisoned food, burning rivers, bad drugs, dirty drinking water, etc.

CrimsonKel
7/12/2011, 06:56 AM
If everyone behaved well and did the right thing all the time we wouldn't need regulations. Unfortunately there are enough people who do the wrong things and behave badly that we need regulations and we need to enforce them. The trick is regulating just the right amount and enforcing it just the right way. Those are hard things to get just right though.

We are in the mess we are in now largely due to deregulation and a lack of enforcement. The markets will not police themselves unfortunately. The ones who are beating us over the heads with this idea that the markets and industries will police themselves are probably the ones we need to look out for because they are going to steal us blind and destroy our country.

If you don't like taxes, gun laws, or regulations in general, a good place for you to move is Somalia. They don't have any of that stuff.

pphilfran
7/12/2011, 07:08 AM
It's not just government jobs, which do add to the economy, as government workers also own homes and buy stuff; businesses have to spend billions to comply with regulation. A big part of that is paying compliance workers, safety inspectors, engineers, etc.

And there's also the fact that regulation protects the public from poisoned food, burning rivers, bad drugs, dirty drinking water, etc.

You must look to see if a function is value added...

In a perfect world where everyone abides by common sense rules there would be no need for regulation, auditing, or policing...you would be wasting money...no value added...

In the real world we must balance the amount of regulation and audits vs the cost over the short and long term...

My problem is that we pass regulation and then don't give enough "teeth" the the regulators or auditing....if the chance of an audit is slim...say every 25 years... then the regs probably won't get followed by a certain percentage of the population..

On the other side if you audit every day you go broke...

There should be unannounced random audits on a reasonable time frame...you don't have to audit the whole friggin system during each random audit...since they folks getting audited don't know which area you are going to be digging into they have to be sure that all areas are within compliance...and since the audits are basically unannounced (give a weeks notice) they will need to keep everything up to date...

imo many, if not most, fed jobs are not value added...

pphilfran
7/12/2011, 07:09 AM
Ignore my post and just read Crimsons since his is shorter...

Midtowner
7/12/2011, 08:33 AM
imo many, if not most, fed jobs are not value added...

Do you value rivers that don't burn because of industrial pollutants dumped in them?

Most of these regs exist because something an industry is doing is deemed hazardous to the public's health or well being, and regulation does do a fairly good job (sometimes not) in dealing with those issues.

They system isn't perfect, but scrapping it would be an unmitigated disaster. Would you advocate just trusting coal plants to use their best judgment about filtering technologies?

DIB
7/12/2011, 08:50 AM
If everyone behaved well and did the right thing all the time we wouldn't need regulations. Unfortunately there are enough people who do the wrong things and behave badly that we need regulations and we need to enforce them. The trick is regulating just the right amount and enforcing it just the right way. Those are hard things to get just right though.

We are in the mess we are in now largely due to deregulation and a lack of enforcement. The markets will not police themselves unfortunately. The ones who are beating us over the heads with this idea that the markets and industries will police themselves are probably the ones we need to look out for because they are going to steal us blind and destroy our country.

If you don't like taxes, gun laws, or regulations in general, a good place for you to move is Somalia. They don't have any of that stuff.

It is good to see that the "if you don't like this country, then you can just git out" argument is still alive and well on the internet.

soonerscuba
7/12/2011, 08:50 AM
Do you value rivers that don't burn because of industrial pollutants dumped in them?

Most of these regs exist because something an industry is doing is deemed hazardous to the public's health or well being, and regulation does do a fairly good job (sometimes not) in dealing with those issues.

They system isn't perfect, but scrapping it would be an unmitigated disaster. Would you advocate just trusting coal plants to use their best judgment about filtering technologies?Well, if you don't like it, do something about it. Go and build your own, better coal plant from your garage organizing profits and money saved from not being a doctor.

DIB
7/12/2011, 08:57 AM
Do you value rivers that don't burn because of industrial pollutants dumped in them?

Most of these regs exist because something an industry is doing is deemed hazardous to the public's health or well being, and regulation does do a fairly good job (sometimes not) in dealing with those issues.

They system isn't perfect, but scrapping it would be an unmitigated disaster. Would you advocate just trusting coal plants to use their best judgment about filtering technologies?

Value add in terms of the economy is a different animal than what you describe. I may think a park is a nice place to visit (ergo I value it), but it adds no value to the economy. That does not imply that the park is not a societal good, despite that fact.

The vast majority of companies are governed by the market and societal pressures. Everyone points to the evil banks, when the vast majority of banks did not cause any crisis, it was a relatively small subset. Thus, regulation comes in to combat that small subset that cannot be trusted to "play by the rules." The unfortunate side effect is that the cost of regulation greatly hurts the companies that were already following the rules. The ones that weren't are just going to try to find ways around the new regulations. The regulations become merely a way to keep honest companies honest.


Edit: I am not implying that we scrap the regulatory system completely. There are obviously some industries where the damage that can be caused by the rule breakers is greater than any burden placed on the no rule breakers.

pphilfran
7/12/2011, 09:05 AM
Do you value rivers that don't burn because of industrial pollutants dumped in them?

Most of these regs exist because something an industry is doing is deemed hazardous to the public's health or well being, and regulation does do a fairly good job (sometimes not) in dealing with those issues.

They system isn't perfect, but scrapping it would be an unmitigated disaster. Would you advocate just trusting coal plants to use their best judgment about filtering technologies?

I wasn't totally clear...

We must have regulations...but regulations are meaningless without the possibility of being audited...

We had all the regulations in place to stop or reduce the impact of the BP gulf disaster...but our auditing system failed....

We had all the regulations in place to stop or reduce the impact of the financial meltdown...but our auditing system failed...

All the highway signs in the world won't make people obey the limits if there are no police to enforce the laws...

If we were to audit properly we would probably need less regulation...

Like I said...random, non scheduled audits of limited scale performed on a reasonable time frame...

pphilfran
7/12/2011, 09:07 AM
Value add in terms of the economy is a different animal than what you describe. I may think a park is a nice place to visit (ergo I value it), but it adds no value to the economy. That does not imply that the park is not a societal good, despite that fact.

The vast majority of companies are governed by the market and societal pressures. Everyone points to the evil banks, when the vast majority of banks did not cause any crisis, it was a relatively small subset. Thus, regulation comes in to combat that small subset that cannot be trusted to "play by the rules." The unfortunate side effect is that the cost of regulation greatly hurts the companies that were already following the rules. The ones that weren't are just going to try to find ways around the new regulations. The regulations become merely a way to keep honest companies honest.


Edit: I am not implying that we scrap the regulatory system completely. There are obviously some industries where the damage that can be caused by the rule breakers is greater than any burden placed on the no rule breakers.

Nice post, DIB

jkjsooner
7/12/2011, 09:29 AM
If everyone behaved well and did the right thing all the time we wouldn't need regulations. Unfortunately there are enough people who do the wrong things and behave badly that we need regulations and we need to enforce them. The trick is regulating just the right amount and enforcing it just the right way. Those are hard things to get just right though.

And that's the key. Nobody is saying that we do not have too many regulations on small business or that some industries are not over-regulated. Most would agree that that is the case.

The point is, just because your family business is drowning in paperwork and regulation doesn't mean that we should continue down the path of completely deregulating the financial industry.

We went way too far over the last 30 years deregulating the financial industry and we are now paying that price.


We are in the mess we are in now largely due to deregulation and a lack of enforcement. The markets will not police themselves unfortunately.

Exactly. We had a fed chairman who once said, "I don't think it's the role of the government to regulate fraud." Greenspan seriously believed that the market itself should regulate fraud. If you can commit fraud then that's the fault of the victim. Seriously, he made this statement...

And you wonder how we got into this mess...

jkjsooner
7/12/2011, 09:41 AM
The unfortunate side effect is that the cost of regulation greatly hurts the companies that were already following the rules.

Good post but I want to point out that regulation doesn't simply hurt those companies following rules. There are also tremendous benefits for them.


In the case of banks, you have the problem of cascading failures. Good banks are put at risk because of the behavior of bad banks. If you properly regulate the banks, you are protecting the good banks.

In general, markets are a competition. If your competitor isn't following the rules that puts you at a competitive disadvantage.


This even applies to some environmental type regulations. If the company upstream is allowed to pour toxic chemicals into your river, your fishing company is going to pay a heavy price. Maybe your fishing company is burdened by environmental regulations but rest assured you are also benefiting from it.

DIB
7/12/2011, 09:45 AM
Good post but I want to point out that regulation doesn't simply hurt those companies following rules. There are also benefits for thos companies.


In the case of banks, you have the problem of cascading failures. Good banks are put at risk because of the behavior of bad banks. If you properly regulate the banks, you are protecting the good banks.

In general, markets are a competition. If your competitor isn't following the rules that puts you at a competitive disadvantage.



I agree, but when the government bails out the banks that weren't following the rules, they get the advantage of risky behavior without dealing with the consequences. Where as the more conservative bank that sacrificed some profit for stability, ended up in no better position for their sound strategies than those that should have failed.

Position Limit
7/12/2011, 10:17 AM
this may not be completely on topic, but i remember a time when the CFTC wanted jurisdiction over the otc derivative markets and greenspan, rubin and the boys would not have it. that was about 12 years ago. about 18 years into that wild west market. regulatory bodies are out manned and when there's a crisis they become overzealous in thier attempt to prevent the same crisis. when they try to get in front of a potential blowup, they are shot down by the most powerful all in the name of "BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER"!!!! it gets old.

dwarthog
7/12/2011, 10:19 AM
But there was a stimulus to help us get out. The Bush tax cuts were a part of that stimulus. Also, I'm not sure about this right now but I believe there wasn't anyone the size of Lehman Brothers, GM, or Bear Stearns ready to go belly up. There were no companies with the balance sheets the size of those 3 about to go out of business.


Microsoft has already been broken up once and I believe the antitrust arm of the SEC has opened an investigation into Google. I would agree with you that Google is not a monopoly. Yahoo still exists and is going quite well, and the Android phone OS faces stiff competition from products by Windows and Apple.


Of course, GM already got the "too big to fail" treatment from Obama. Since Goldman Sachs only main source of competition now is from MorganStanley, the entire investment banking industry might need a look-see. But yes, both GM and Goldman (especially the latter) have a ton of money and people in powerful positions in Washington.

What autonomous business unit was Microsoft forced to create due to antitrust actions by the Feds?

jkjsooner
7/12/2011, 10:24 AM
I agree, but when the government bails out the banks that weren't following the rules, they get the advantage of risky behavior without dealing with the consequences. Where as the more conservative bank that sacrificed some profit for stability, ended up in no better position for their sound strategies than those that should have failed.

Well, I believe the shareholders lost quite a bit. In that respect the banks paid a huge price.

However, in today's world the shareholders, despite being the true owners of a company, have little say in the operations of a company. Power is mostly limited to the executives and they made out like bandits.

This is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in our current economic system. Ownership is so dilluted that most individual owners have little say and it is virtually impossible to get them to organize is such a manner to have true power over decision making. With the power held at the boards of directors and executives, these people will behave in a manner that is in their own best interest even if that conflicts with the company's long term best interest. For an executive, taking excessive risks is highly profitable because bonuses are tied to short term gains. A gain followed by a crash (even if the crash destroys the company) is a lot more profitable for a CEO than a small steady growth.

I don't think we've done anything to address this. Even allowing all these entities to fail would not have removed the incentive for future CEO's to follow this exact path.

Anyway, getting way off topic...

Chuck Bao
7/12/2011, 12:38 PM
this may not be completely on topic, but i remember a time when the CFTC wanted jurisdiction over the otc derivative markets and greenspan, rubin and the boys would not have it. that was about 12 years ago. about 18 years into that wild west market. regulatory bodies are out manned and when there's a crisis they become overzealous in thier attempt to prevent the same crisis. when they try to get in front of a potential blowup, they are shot down by the most powerful all in the name of "BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER"!!!! it gets old.

In the securities industry this is so true. Spek, Position Limit.

I am appalled that regulators' only solution is to force research to add additional disclaimers. AS IF, anyone reading those reports are going to read the fine print. Right now, we have about four pages of disclaimers because our reports are sent out worldwide. We have to comply with Thai, Singaporean and US disclaimers. I mean, like that is going to improve the quality and honesty of the analysts' views and recommendations.

Overstretched regulators just add more regulations to cover their butt in case of a lawsuit. That is all.

Position Limit
7/12/2011, 01:04 PM
In the securities industry this is so true. Spek, Position Limit.

I am appalled that regulators' only solution is to force research to add additional disclaimers. AS IF, anyone reading those reports are going to read the fine print. Right now, we have about four pages of disclaimers because our reports are sent out worldwide. We have to comply with Thai, Singaporean and US disclaimers. I mean, like that is going to improve the quality and honesty of the analysts' views and recommendations.

Overstretched regulators just add more regulations to cover their butt in case of a lawsuit. That is all.

i feel your frustration. i spend 25% of my time dealing with exchange compliance crap. things that dont make any difference at all. none. but my theory now is that since every exchange in the world seems to be demutalized, they now welcome more reg. to profit from fines. it's the only thing that makes sense to me. and the large exchange shareholders are the big banks!!!!! good god. it's a bullsh*t game. every exchange traded market is horsesh*t. they only way to find edge is un regulated markets, or access to free fed money (carry trade). i dont mind regulation. i just dont understand drying up liquidity to make up for the madoff blowup. sorry for the rant.

Position Limit
7/12/2011, 01:11 PM
btw chuck, speaking of foreign markets, where the hell has the sec and the nasdaq been the last 9 months during the whole chinese reverse merger stock manipulation? this has been the most obvious scam for awhile now and american investors have gotten carried off with it. you're in an overseas market, can you shed any light?