Politics
Out of context: Reply #12048
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- mathinc0
ukit,
Sorry for the late response from the last page.
Regulation imo is overdone. I get what you are saying, but I think the realism of what happened in the CDO/Credit Default Swap scams are EXACTLY why regulations don't work very well. These guys gamed the system in almost a completely legal way. Short of not notifying their investors that they were betting against the CDO's they created.. it was all legal. So what you're saying is that you think regulations keep you safe? Regulations are pretty much, by definition, a reactionary policy. A loophole is found and exploited, and then a policy is created to bandage that loophole. Sure, some policy is probably created before much damage is done.. but just looking at what Goldman Sachs was doing (along with hundreds of others) it's quite obvious that there was no gov body watching the market, so I'm quite certain their function is purely a reactionary one. Sound about right? What I'm saying, and I think you missed my point, is that relying on regulations is about as smart as driving your car by watching the road in the rearview mirror. A much better way to safeguard against loophole exploitation is to have creative agencies being as creative as the exploiters, or another name, Oversight. Where was the SEC while everyone on Wall Street was gaming the system? Probably out enforcing regulations... ? Who was watching for pitfalls in the exotic new investment tools, the Jenga blocks (as you said)? You know congress voted to keep the Credit Default Swaps from actually having to have real financial backing correct? They basically let these bankers make bets with money they didn't actually need to have on hand.. What do you want, a reactionary system (regulations) that just keeps building a portfolio of hoops and loopholes only acting after the fact or a system that looks forward and attempts to flow with these exotic financial tools interpreting and exploiting the fissures and cracks before they open up like fucking sinkholes?
- If what they did was destructive...but legal...then why not simply make it NOT legal. It's not really that complicated. No offense, but it sounds like you are grasping at straws to find a way to disagree with the Democrats.ukit
- complicated. No offense, but it sounds like you are grasping at straws to find a way to disagree with the Democrats.ukit
- math is spot on. and what to do with the fed when they recklessly manipulate the interest rates is a tough one too********
- especially when the manipulation has so much to do with politics rather then real good********
- Forget it. You guys have an infantile understanding of this stuff. Even John Cornyn was calling the other Republicans out on opposing this.ukit
- out on opposing these reforms, which are pretty common sense.ukit
- ukit.. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. I'm comparing two systems of overseeing Wall Street practices..mathinc
- practices. I'm not on any political side and I think some of these bankers should be hung by their balls.mathinc
- But I disagree with you that Regulations will save us from future greedy fuckers exploiting the system. 'Making it NOT legal'mathinc
- is great, but it does nothing for the future NOT yet illegal situations.mathinc
- That's an inherent weakness sure, look at the internet as a prime example of the technology outpacing the lawukit
- But that's not a good argument against trying to make reforms TODAY that are obviously neededukit
- Never disagreed with you there ukit. Yes they are needed now that ALL THE FUCKING DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE.mathinc
- But these regulations won't do anything for the next type of exploitation. Get what I'm saying now?mathinc
- Yeah but innovation doesn't happen THAT fast. It's not like it changes every week or even year.ukit
- Like the adage says, the GOP says that gov't doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.luckyorphan
- The SEC fell apart under Bush 43. They became more than laissez-faire.luckyorphan