Confessions of a Former Republican

[kimmy]

Businesses need less red tape. It's a fact. Less red tape means more jobs.

Suckers like you think they're talking about less forms and permits for small-businessmen to fill out, but what they're really talking about is axing Dodd-Frank, and the CFPA, and fighting any further attempts to keep Wall Street honest.

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

Suckers like you think they're talking about less forms and permits for small-businessmen to fill out, but what they're really talking about is axing Dodd-Frank, and the CFPA, and fighting any further attempts to keep Wall Street honest.

-k

The financial services industry is the most regulated on the planet. Was before the crunch and will be even more after.

Moral hazard is key. Google it and then get back to me. Moral hazard eliminates the need for regulations on wall street.

[kimmy]

The first job of any great nation is to protect itself.

Do you actually think about this stuff, or are you just reading from a script? The United States is far superior to any conceivable military threat. The deficit is a greater threat to America than some imaginary military foe.

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

Do you actually think about this stuff, or are you just reading from a script? The United States is far superior to any conceivable military threat. The deficit is a greater threat to America than some imaginary military foe.

-k

you are correct. what I am saying is that military comes first. time to cut some of the fat. defence spending could be part of this.

Edited September 15, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[kimmy]

The financial services industry is the most regulated on the planet. Was before the crunch and will be even more after.

Moral hazard is key. Google it and then get back to me. Moral hazard eliminates the need for regulations on wall street.

Ok, here's what I got:

"In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk."

Fair enough?

Because if that's the case, then that's *exactly* why regulations *are* necessary on Wall Street. These guys felt safe sinking an absurd amount of money into risky investments, because the magic of the unregulated derivatives market allowed them to pass the risk on to others.

The Clinton and Bush administrations both refused to regulate derivatives, and the result was that banks had financial incentive to make *more* risky investment, not *less*.

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ok, here's what I got:

"In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk."

Fair enough?

Because if that's the case, then that's *exactly* why regulations *are* necessary on Wall Street. These guys felt safe sinking an absurd amount of money into risky investments, because the magic of the unregulated derivatives market allowed them to pass the risk on to others.

The Clinton and Bush administrations both refused to regulate derivatives, and the result was that banks had financial incentive to make *more* risky investment, not *less*.

-k

I can see where you are trying to make sense, and I give you kudos on that. But remember, the banks failed (or almost did but didn't thanks to TARP - Bush by the way, not sure why Obama keeps taking credit for saving the world). So your premise is false. If the risks were passed on to others, then why did they need a bailout?

Edited September 15, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[kimmy]

I can see where you are trying to make sense, and I give you kudos on that. But remember, the banks failed (or almost did but didn't thanks to TARP - Bush by the way, not sure why Obama keeps taking credit for saving the world). So your premise is false. If the risks were passed on to others, then why did they need a bailout?

When the housing bubble popped and the frequency of foreclosures increased in 2007, the dividends on CDOs (collateralized debt obligations, the derivative products made up of these risky mortgages) plunged and people began to stop buying them. The banks were left holding all these risky mortgages they couldn't unload anymore.

AIG insurance was also devastated by the foreclosure crisis because many of the CDOs were insured through AIG.

That's the kindergarten version... the mechanics of the "securitization chain" were a lot more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it. They couldn't pass the buck anymore, and got left holding the bag.

Anyway, the premise that "moral hazard" keeps banks honest because they've got skin in the game isn't true. They're playing with other peoples' money.

There has been plenty of recent news that proves banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves (LIBOR, money laundering for Iran and drug cartels, using dishonest accounting practices to exaggerate their financial situations, and more.)

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

When the housing bubble popped and the frequency of foreclosures increased in 2007, the dividends on CDOs (collateralized debt obligations, the derivative products made up of these risky mortgages) plunged and people began to stop buying them. The banks were left holding all these risky mortgages they couldn't unload anymore.

AIG insurance was also devastated by the foreclosure crisis because many of the CDOs were insured through AIG.

That's the kindergarten version... the mechanics of the "securitization chain" were a lot more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it. They couldn't pass the buck anymore, and got left holding the bag.

Anyway, the premise that "moral hazard" keeps banks honest because they've got skin in the game isn't true. They're playing with other peoples' money.

There has been plenty of recent news that proves banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves (LIBOR, money laundering for Iran and drug cartels, using dishonest accounting practices to exaggerate their financial situations, and more.)

-k

You actually make some sense here, and to be honest, I'm not sure where I come down on this issue. Obama would have us believe CDOs only existed because there was no regulation, but lets be honest, the securities industry is one of the most regulated industries on the planet, even before the 2008 crash!

Look at the CDOs. The problem wasn't lack of regulation. It wasn't. Be truthful. How do I know this? Because both Moody's and S&P had these things as AAA paper. Trust me, if the ratting agencies didn't understand these things, there is no way on God's green earth that some watchdog with an arts degree from Syracuse did.

Have you seen the reports from Moody's or S&P? It's pure gibberish. I say it again, the problem was not lack of regulation. There was plenty of regulation. If you want to be brutally honest, the problem was probably that there is no money in bond rating or regulation. The money's at Goldman. So these dummies at the SEC were frankly in over their heads. And apparently so was Moody's and everyone else!!!

More regulation won't save the financial world from another bubble. Let the market be the market.

[Bitsy]

Ah yes the big bad bankers.

If that's your take, fine, but it goes to your credibility. There were many culpable parties over several decades which led to the financial meltdown.

All intelligent people know this.

I shall cede the floor to the self-described intellect and ask for specifics of your charge that "There were many culpable parties over several decades which led to the financial meltdown."

[Guest American Woman]

OMG, you nailed it, I could never put on finger on it, but that's it. She makes implications, denies it and then responds very antagonistically. I have to 'review' her answers with her all the time and I've often had to ask her to just spell it out, whatever her point is.

As for that little spat at guyser, yep, I'm with the rest of you. Strange reaction to a very innocent question.

What's strangest of all is you and your ilk going on and on about me regarding a comment (which you see as a "spat?" ) I made to guyser. Stick to falsely accusing me of hating Muslims and believing anyone who doesn't wholly support Israel is anti-semitic. In other words, worry about yourself. It should be enough to keep you busy.

[Guest American Woman]

These days are as fresh in my mind as the years that I lived them; they left an indelible mark. Times have changed but our religious right’s prejudices and exclusionary attitudes are broadened now to include illegal’s, LGBT, Muslims and liberals.

Since I have to assume that by "religious right" you don't just mean religious people who vote Republican (or you would be exhibiting such bias yourself) but those who are, in effect, fundamentalist in their beliefs, I would say that it's not just "your" religious right which shares such attitudes, nor is it exclusive of the religious right in America. I see evidence of such a mindset just about everywhere. In some nations, though, it's Christians who are excluded, while others it's an anti-Semitic mindset. Furthermore, one not be "religious" to have just prejudices.

[Bitsy]

Since I have to assume that by "religious right" you don't just mean religious people who vote Republican (or you would be exhibiting such bias yourself) but those who are, in effect, fundamentalist in their beliefs, I would say that it's not just "your" religious right which shares such attitudes, nor is it exclusive of the religious right in America. I see evidence of such a mindset just about everywhere. In some nations, though, it's Christians who are excluded, while others it's an anti-Semitic mindset. Furthermore, one not be "religious" to have just prejudices.

Yes, you are correct; I do mean our Christian fundamentalist when I speak of our “religious right”. You are also correct that I do not think fundamentalism is synonymous with Christianity. And, further, my life experiences agree that prejudices come in all sizes and flavor but in my opinion, they are more odious when they are from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, you are correct; I do mean our Christian fundamentalist when I speak of our “religious right”. You are also correct that I do not think fundamentalism is synonymous with Christianity. And, further, my life experiences agree that prejudices come in all sizes and flavor but in my opinion, they are more odious when they are from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament.

I don't understand why. Sticking strictly with religious people's prejudices for now, what makes prejudices from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament more odious than those who believe in the teachings of Islam, for example?

Edited September 15, 2012 by American Woman

[Bitsy]

I don't understand why. Sticking strictly with religious people's prejudices for now, what makes prejudices from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament more odious than those who believe in the teachings of Islam, for example?

I can only speak to the religion that I know, I have no knowledge of the teachings of Islam or another religion.

[Guest American Woman]

I can only speak to the religion that I know, I have no knowledge of the teachings of Islam or another religion.

So how can you say that suicide bombers are willing to die for their mistaken beliefs? How do you know that their beliefs are mistaken, while having "no knowledge of the teachings of Islam?"

Edited to include the quote:

[...]The suicide bomber is willing to die for their mistaken belief while a radical Christian, like Timothy McVeigh, prefers to view from afar the destruction he wrought; radicalization in any form is to be condemned.

Edited September 15, 2012 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Look at the CDOs. The problem wasn't lack of regulation. It wasn't. Be truthful. How do I know this? Because both Moody's and S&P had these things as AAA paper.

Weren't these bonds rated AAA because that's the rating the issuers went shopping around for?

[Bitsy]

So how can you say that suicide bombers are willing to die for their mistaken beliefs? How do you know that their beliefs are mistaken, while having "no knowledge of the teachings of Islam?"

Where did I say that?

[Guest American Woman]

Where did I say that?

I just edited my original post to include your quote, so I'll repeat it here for you:

The suicide bomber is willing to die for their mistaken belief while a radical Christian, like Timothy McVeigh, prefers to view from afar the destruction he wrought; radicalization in any form is to be condemned.

[cybercoma]

Anyway, the premise that "moral hazard" keeps banks honest because they've got skin in the game isn't true. They're playing with other peoples' money.

Not only that but the heads of the banks know that the government isn't going to let them go under, so there's absolutely no risk in f'ing up.

[GostHacked]

Not only that but the heads of the banks know that the government isn't going to let them go under, so there's absolutely no risk in f'ing up.

This was backed up and confirmed by Bernanke issuing QE3 which has no end to it. The fed is dishing out 40 Billion a month until further notice.

[Bitsy]

I just edited my original post to include your quote, so I'll repeat it here for you:

Please provide the link to the thread...I prefer reading things in context That said, I am of the opinion that the God I was taught would find any belief to be 'mistaken' that killed innocent people in his name.

[Guest American Woman]

Please provide the link to the thread...I prefer reading things in context That said, I am of the opinion that the God I was taught would find any belief to be 'mistaken' that killed innocent people in his name.

Just click on the arrow by your name in the quote box; it'll take you to the original post.

But since you are willing to apply your teachings about God to Islam, why can't you answer my question? I'll ask again: "what makes prejudices from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament more odious than those who believe in the teachings of Islam, for example?"

[eyeball]

...why can't you answer my question?

Madness this way lies.

[Bitsy]

Just click on the arrow by your name in the quote box; it'll take you to the original post.

But since you are willing to apply your teachings about God to Islam, why can't you answer my question? I'll ask again: "what makes prejudices from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament more odious than those who believe in the teachings of Islam, for example?"

Thanks, I learn something every day.

Radicalism is not exclusive to Islam; I see it in Christianity, I see it in ideologies, I even see it in parenting. The danger in radicalism is when it is used by people in power to gain control over the reasoned, mainstream majority... the bogeyman approach. The left in the US sees suicide bombers, regardless of their age, as the tragic results of this fear mongering. The suicide bomber is willing to die for their mistaken belief while a radical Christian, like Timothy McVeigh, prefers to view from afar the destruction he wrought; radicalization in any form is to be condemned. .

The post was about radicalism in several areas, not just religion. I did not profess any knowledge of Islam in stating that the suicide bombers died for a belief. IMO, it was a mistaken belief that had been radicalized whether it be by religion, political ideologies, or culture differences, I made no judgment on that.

I do not have time time nor the inclination to become involved in discussing my interpretation of the New Testament; every teaching there is opening to interpretation depending on the doctrine of your chosen denomination. Though, no Christian denomination that I am aware of tells Christians to murder innocents in the name of God. We are all products of our life experiences and the point you are contesting was prefaced with ‘in my opinon’. Obviously, you are of another opinion to which you are entitled.

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks, I learn something every day.

You're welcome. I find it comes in handy when wanting to refer back to original quotes.

The post was about radicalism in several areas, not just religion. I did not profess any knowledge of Islam in stating that the suicide bombers died for a belief. IMO, it was a mistaken belief that had been radicalized whether it be by religion, political ideologies, or culture differences, I made no judgment on that.

Ok. Going along with that, I still don't understand why you think that prejudice from those who believe in the teachings of the New Testament is more odious than that of anyone else, whether it be due to "religion, political ideologies, or culture differences."

I do not have time time nor the inclination to become involved in discussing my interpretation of the New Testament; every teaching there is opening to interpretation depending on the doctrine of your chosen denomination. Though, no Christian denomination that I am aware of tells Christians to murder innocents in the name of God. We are all products of our life experiences and the point you are contesting was prefaced with ‘in my opinon’.

Trust me, I'm not interested in discussing the New Testament in any way, shape, or form; I'm just wondering why you single out the prejudice of those who believe in the New Testament as being more odious than the prejudices of anyone else.

Obviously, you are of another opinion to which you are entitled.

Yes, I am. To me prejudice is just as odious no matter where it's coming from, not to mention often times hypocritical.