FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Politics > Politics and World Events

Greetings!

Politics and World Events A place for all you liberals, conservatives, and even radicals.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 04-10-2009, 04:26 AM
stundie's Avatar
stundie stundie is offline
Pseudo-skeptical Spanker!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The land of woo, apparently!
Posts: 633
Nate Dogg and Warren G had to regulate back in 1994...The G Funk Era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
It is allowing the government to stick its nose in private business when there is no need.
So the government should not have stuck there nose in?....because Private Businesses are doing fine without government intervention?.....lol

You have avoided the question, which was how is Glass Steagall law the government sticking it's nose in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Why is this same old line of argument being so used lately, havent the big government types learned yet that you can not regulation private industry?
2 problems with your assumptions.

1....Who says I am a big government type?? lol
2....If you cannot regulate private industry, then how comes the US regulates many private industries??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Its one thing to have laws that stop fraud and theft and such. But if someone makes money legitly, stop turning them into crooks.
So a ponzi scheme is legal and I'm turning them into crooks?? lol

WOW!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
We wouldnt NEED this kind of act if we would of never went off our gold standard...which we can thank FDR for that.
Maybe so, however you are not addressing the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Learn a little about history in this nation before spouting off corrupt Acts/laws.
I think you would be wise to heed some of your own wisdom. Try starting with The Pecora Commission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
We would nto be down this path if FDR did not push for his The Gold Confiscation Act.
Maybe you should look further into the future and look at Nixon for abandoning the gold standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
We need to remember that banks are not int he business to make money, its customers are(hence interest you gain from savings).
So how does a bank survive if it is not making money??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
No it was the New Deal and Great Society acts and legislation that messed this up along with Frank Blarney, Dodd and Palosei and otehrs in our government that want to enlarge the powers of government in the private sector. (please do not misunderstand me, republican leaders are just as responsible...but not nearly as vocal as the Democrats)
You are missing the point.

The mess we are in as nothing to do with more regulation. Again, listen to what William Black states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interview
WILLIAM K. BLACK: There were two really big things, under the Clinton administration. One, they got rid of the law that came out of the real-world disasters of the Great Depression. We learned a lot of things in the Great Depression. And one is we had to separate what's called commercial banking from investment banking. That's the Glass-Steagall law. But we thought we were much smarter, supposedly. So we got rid of that law, and that was bipartisan. And the other thing is we passed a law, because there was a very good regulator, Brooksley Born, that everybody should know about and probably doesn't. She tried to do the right thing to regulate one of these exotic derivatives that you're talking about. We call them C.D.F.S. And Summers, Rubin, and Phil Gramm came together to say not only will we block this particular regulation. We will pass a law that says you can't regulate. And it's this type of derivative that is most involved in the AIG scandal. AIG all by itself, cost the same as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.

BILL MOYERS: What did AIG contribute? What did they do wrong?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: They made bad loans. Their type of loan was to sell a guarantee, right? And they charged a lot of fees up front. So, they booked a lot of income. Paid enormous bonuses. The bonuses we're thinking about now, they're much smaller than these bonuses that were also the product of accounting fraud. And they got very, very rich. But, of course, then they had guaranteed this toxic waste. These liars' loans. Well, we've just gone through why those toxic waste, those liars' loans, are going to have enormous losses. And so, you have to pay the guarantee on those enormous losses. And you go bankrupt. Except that you don't in the modern world, because you've come to the United States, and the taxpayers play the fool. Under Secretary Geithner and under Secretary Paulson before him... we took $5 billion dollars, for example, in U.S. taxpayer money. And sent it to a huge Swiss Bank called UBS. At the same time that that bank was defrauding the taxpayers of America. And we were bringing a criminal case against them. We eventually get them to pay a $780 million fine, but wait, we gave them $5 billion. So, the taxpayers of America paid the fine of a Swiss Bank. And why are we bailing out somebody who that is defrauding us?
Could you explain how deregulation which you are so keen on would prevent this from happening again??

More importantly, why do you keep making this a partisan argument....when it is nothing of a sort?? lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
That is why laws are created in courts. let the courts do the job of prosecution of criminals and leave the legislation to worry about other duties(at least how it is suppose to be in this country).
How can you prosecute criminals when nobody appears to be investigating??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Are you talking about free market/capitalism?
Yes, a systemic greed in the free market/capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
But our politicians should not be deciding this type of thing, that is the courts and the general populous to decide such laws to be put in the books of each state. Not politicans on a national level or even at state level. We can not regulate greed, that is a moral question that should never be legislated.
So how do courts and the general populous (Who have little to no knowledge of finance!) decide such laws and regulation??

I sometimes ponder at the logic you choose to employ in lack of any rational thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I agree that those that allowed it to happen should be highlighted, but its the citizens that took it upon themselves to NOT think before creating these loans(whether for homes or businesses) in the first place.
These loans were not created by citizens. Yes, they should have thought about it like I had and at the time, I had little to know financial knowledge, I just knew something wasn't right, but as I've repeated, lots of regular citizens do not have knowledge of how finance works or understand where this money comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
If people would of used their heads, they would not been taken advantage of.
But some people used their heads and were still taken advantage off.

I was told from a very young age that it is very wise to invest in a pension, my parents used to always go on about it, the government told people to invest in pensions, they used their heads because for many years previously, people had paid into pensions and received worthy sums and payments for their retirement.

Through no fault of thier own, the pensions funds have been plundered by Gordon Brown and they were taken advantage off.

They used their heads, they thought they were saving for the future.

New Labour didn't use their heads, they just robbed these people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I hear how people complain about the trickle down thing, why not some consequences of the trickle up from the common person?
Yeah...Why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I understand what you are trying to say.
Good. I didn't have any interest in finance but I remember the housing bubble in the UK way back in the late 80's and remember how people got burnt and ended up in negative equity to know that something wasn't right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
You can not regulate morality or ideology like greed and spending practices.
We regulate morality constantly otherwise, we would be free to rape, pillage and murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Only way you can teach or solve this issue is to teach the borrowers a lesson. And the only way you can do that is to allow them to make the stupid mistake and learn from it.
Or you can regulate so that these stupid mistakes cannot be made by learning from your previous errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
What do you think a mortatage is Stundie? Its a buy now and pay later thing.
Thanks for the heads up, but I was reffering to the buy now, pay later analogy to the whole of the financial fiasco that created a continous growing economy....all under false pretences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Not even a millionare would pay off that item right off the bat, any common sense person who wants to buy a house(most common instance you would use a loan)KNOWS that it is better to get a loan you can afford based on your income(not including bonuses and such).
So what would you do with your millions if you didn't pay off your mortgage?

Play on the stockmarket? Invest the money? Put it into savings which earns less interest on the mortgage you are paying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I do not agree it is understandable...it is inexcusable and wrong. It is sucking mine, my childern and grandchilderns future down the drain. For what? So some lame excuse for a human can be okay now? Inexcuseable.

Yes, my childern, and their childern too.
Yet you are proposing deregulation?

Do you not see the irony of what you are saying, is that by deregulation, this will only further exacerbate the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
There is laws in the books in each state for crimes of fraud and theft. Why do we need a NATIONAL law to do this? Reason why this nation has states with their own laws that was decided by its citizens.
If there is no one to investigate the crimes of fraud and theft, then how can you prosecute anyone when there is no investigation?

Should state law have jurisdiction over financial irregularities, fraud and theft when it is hardly a state problem, but a nationwide problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Not just the rich that benifited...even those poor sobs got a nice home and now they are being and will be bailed out.
Not all the poor sobs are being bailed out, some of them are too late to be bailed out and have already lost their homes and money they have paid to these institutions which are being bailed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Not just the banks, even Obama thinks this of bailing out those poor sobs.
Well I suppose help is only available to the rich sobs hey?? Fuck the poor sobs??

You are beginning to sound like Rick Santelli.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
What about us poor sobs that did not get sucked into these bad loans? Can not save everyone.
If you did not get sucked in, then why do you need saving?? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
By the way, these are ideal opinions of mine, does not mean they are realistic at this time in history of what I think our governments role.
Well your ideal opinions are strange to say the least......lol

But of course, that is my opinion.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17  
Old 04-10-2009, 05:32 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
How does regulation stifle us and restrict innovation??
Because we have moral seekers who want to regulate wealth rather then protect those that might lose their wealth by fraud or theft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Regulation protects you, no matter how much you hate it.
Says you. I see regulation as a threat to my further moving up in my life. What society needs is guidelines, not restrictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
The car you drive would not be designed to safety standards if there was no regulatory control. Air travel would be far more riskier without regulation. We have laws, regulations if you will, stops us and others from killing each other. The water you drink from the tap as to meet regulatory standards in order for it too be safe for human consumption. The medicine you take when you are ill or sick as to pass stringent regulatory measures in order that they do what they say they do on the packet, that they are safe to use and that they have no serious side effects.
And you do not think that independant watch groups do not push these standards? Do you think it is all public run pushes? Sorry it is not as simple as that. You also can not go over the heads of the voters. Also we can live in a society that has independant private organizations that can push for stricter standards or they can open up the wrongs by that business, government programs(which is funded by citizens taxes)do not have to be involved. Its called the citizens taking an active role at their own choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
In a world without regulatory control......you would be fucked.
I guess you ahve not been listening, regulation by public funded government(mainly what I am talking about is Federal government in this country)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Hence the financial system is fucked because of a lack of regulatory control.
And I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Too much regulation is bad, not enough is even worse!
Sorry Dragon, but I do not call anyone greedy because they disagree with me.....lol
Never said you did. Read my post again at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
I use the word greedy when I feel someone or thing is being greedy.
Yes, but greedy also has many definitions and can be vague and broad. So it is pointless to use that negative word to describe even a person at that moment you disagree with. I suppose I should ask you what is greedy to you or how can a person be greedy in YOUR eyes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
So what is the purpose of government if it is not regulating rules and restrictions?
Difference between regulations/restrictions and laws. Also it is how some in this nation have been trying to pass laws on the national level when they should not be able to. Called unConstitutional in this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
The laughable thing is you go on about a hatred of regulation, yet in the same breath, you are quite happy for marijuana to be regulated by rules which make it illegal....lol
You also misrepresent my postion too. I have always argued that federal regulations are not Constitutional, even at times State government too can be added to this. I want state by state laws that are voted by the locals not some far away leaders in Washington DC. Understand now? Or do I have to explain how this nation looks at the difference between state and Federal powers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
It is like hypocrisy as gained a voice.
So the job of government is not to regulate??
The role of the Federal government is explained in the 10th Amendment:
From defense to taxes on certain items.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
So the private sector is above such checks and balances?? Are they morally on higher ground??
Can you point where I said that? Because I never implied or said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Sometimes when I speak with you Dragon, there is a glimmer of intelligence but it is being drowned out with group-think conservatism straight from the Bill O'Reilly playbook........lol
Play book? I do not even watch the guy, except for what people post on here. So what play book is this again? I go by my own thoughts and experiences. No group think here. Nice fallacy use too by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
The public sector would never do any harm.....lol....even though they are partially responsible for this mess!

I think you need to stop twisting peoples words and actually read them.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-10-2009, 06:12 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
So the government should not have stuck there nose in?....because Private Businesses are doing fine without government intervention?.....lol

You have avoided the question, which was how is Glass Steagall law the government sticking it's nose in?
Man, can you not read peoples posts? Seriously, someone answers your questions, could you at least sit still and try to comprehend their responses? I answered you loud and clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
2 problems with your assumptions.

1....Who says I am a big government type?? lol
2....If you cannot regulate private industry, then how comes the US regulates many private industries??
1....just like you assumed I watch Bill Oreilly? Talk about double standards...
2....the government is NOT suppose to(meaning the US government is not suppose to)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
So a ponzi scheme is legal and I'm turning them into crooks?? lol

WOW!!
Please stay with the conversation here Stundie. Where did I say that a ponzi scheme is legal? Talk about assumptions of what you think I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Maybe so, however you are not addressing the point.
Yes I am, it is pretty basic logic. If we did not do something(we as in federal government), we would not have to to OTHER steps like the Act you mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
I think you would be wise to heed some of your own wisdom. Try starting with The Pecora Commission.
Maybe you should look further into the future and look at Nixon for abandoning the gold standard.
What do you think the The Gold Confiscation Act was? A city block gold party?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
So how does a bank survive if it is not making money??
You are missing the point.
There is a difference between making money for itself and holding money for its customers and adding to it when they bring more wealth in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
The mess we are in as nothing to do with more regulation. Again, listen to what William Black states.
Could you explain how deregulation which you are so keen on would prevent this from happening again??
Well we could of made it clear that the banks are not in the business to make money like this? What a concept. You do know that originally banks were to hold wealth by the public, right? Not to actually make a profit. I believe someone on here(I think it was Posiden)that posted a video on history of banks. Very simple concept on banks and their roles. But we as a society have messed it up more so with thinking we can control what other people do with their money...but this is another topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
More importantly, why do you keep making this a partisan argument....when it is nothing of a sort?? lol
Nothing partisan here. I guess you didnt see me comment on how both parties of this nation have done this. Then again that is all you can do rant how I make a partisan argument when I did not even do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
How can you prosecute criminals when nobody appears to be investigating??
What independant citizens can do, they can form their own groups to investigate others, done every day. Exactly what the The Better Business Bureau is for. A non-government organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Yes, a systemic greed in the free market/capitalism.
So how do courts and the general populous (Who have little to no knowledge of finance!) decide such laws and regulation??
Not my responsibility if they are "educated", if they are not, then they will not be part of the solution. Maybe that is something you can champion and help get people informed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
I sometimes ponder at the logic you choose to employ in lack of any rational thinking.
And I really wonder if you want to actually discuss this or insult people like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
These loans were not created by citizens. Yes, they should have thought about it like I had and at the time, I had little to know financial knowledge, I just knew something wasn't right, but as I've repeated, lots of regular citizens do not have knowledge of how finance works or understand where this money comes from.
But some people used their heads and were still taken advantage off.
No my fault or problem, if you are adult enough to use you head, then you shoul dbe smart enough to get help from a outside source of that loan officer to explain it to you. Come on Stundie use some common sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
I was told from a very young age that it is very wise to invest in a pension, my parents used to always go on about it, the government told people to invest in pensions, they used their heads because for many years previously, people had paid into pensions and received worthy sums and payments for their retirement.

Through no fault of thier own, the pensions funds have been plundered by Gordon Brown and they were taken advantage off.
Then go after the crooks then Stundie, not make hasty generalizations of the whole system or grouping all financial systems as the same as you have implied on this thread already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
They used their heads, they thought they were saving for the future.
There is a difference between crooks and event situations no one could have forseen. Big difference. Far too many big government types in this country have used the hasty generalization argument for too long, not working anymore, too many are starting to stand up more...hence the Tea Party protests coming up in this nation on the bail outs and growing government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Yeah...Why not?
Because too many in this society think the little guy should not be able to think or can. Hence the comments of how the average joe does not know about financial stuff. Well maybe it is time we give them a chance to learn or learn finding out the hard way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Good. I didn't have any interest in finance but I remember the housing bubble in the UK way back in the late 80's and remember how people got burnt and ended up in negative equity to know that something wasn't right.
So you learned the hard way, why can not others do that? Why make a law everytime something bad happens?(other then raping, murdering and stealing)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
We regulate morality constantly otherwise, we would be free to rape, pillage and murder.
That is not morality, that is just plain common sense that every society can understand. Plus only a small minority thinks it is okay to kill steal or rape. Its not a norm thing in the human race to do that. Its called rights, do not need morality to have these. I know this may sound like I think the word morality is a dirty word, maybe it is because it is used so many times to force others to follow others in history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Or you can regulate so that these stupid mistakes cannot be made by learning from your previous errors.
Or we can let some who made bad choices learn from their mistakes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Thanks for the heads up, but I was reffering to the buy now, pay later analogy to the whole of the financial fiasco that created a continous growing economy....all under false pretences.
So what would you do with your millions if you didn't pay off your mortgage?
You think most peoples lives revolve around one thing or one bill? How about bills on your own education to your kids education? Or electric bill, water bill, car insurance, food on the table. There is a lot more to life then loans. And I was exaggerating to make a point. That NOONE should tell someone how to spend their money, whether it is foolishly done or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Play on the stockmarket? Invest the money? Put it into savings which earns less interest on the mortgage you are paying?
Do you know what investing means? I also find the word interest a dirty word, because it implies that it should be worth more then it really is. But that is my personal opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Yet you are proposing deregulation?


Do you not see the irony of what you are saying, is that by deregulation, this will only further exacerbate the problem?[/quote]

Do you not understand that it was already exacerbated when the government fucked it up more? How many times to I have to go back to the beginning of the whole issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
If there is no one to investigate the crimes of fraud and theft, then how can you prosecute anyone when there is no investigation?
Not everything revolves around the Federal government. We have private organizations and local government that is better suited to handle the issue at that location that the crime occured.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Should state law have jurisdiction over financial irregularities, fraud and theft when it is hardly a state problem, but a nationwide problem.
Would not have to be a nationwide issue if the Federalists did not start pushing its universal garbage ideology. You do understand where I can coming from right? You do understand state rights and powers, right?

Not all the poor sobs are being bailed out, some of them are too late to be bailed out and have already lost their homes and money they have paid to these institutions which are being bailed out.
Well I suppose help is only available to the rich sobs hey?? Fuck the poor sobs??[/quote]

I say fuck them both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
You are beginning to sound like Rick Santelli.....
If you did not get sucked in, then why do you need saving?? lol
Well your ideal opinions are strange to say the least......lol

But of course, that is my opinion.
Again, I know who the guy is, but do not listen to him or his type. I made it pretty simple at the beginning, I say fuck all who thinks they need a bail out from the rest of us tax payers.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-10-2009, 06:20 AM
stundie's Avatar
stundie stundie is offline
Pseudo-skeptical Spanker!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The land of woo, apparently!
Posts: 633
Cool like Arthur "Fonzie" Fonzarelli or uncool like Bobbo "Ponzi" Bonkerelli?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
The dot-com bubble was a Ponzi scheme?
No, that was an economic bubble. lol

Hence the word "bubble!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
The housing bubble was a Ponzi scheme?
No, that too was an economic bubble. lol

Hence the word "bubble!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
You obviously have no idea what the term "Ponzi scheme" means.
Ponzi Scheme.....Whats that then?? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme, and apparently so did Sanford. There have been any number of them discovered in the last 80 years. I liked the one by Billie Sol Estes the best. Very creative.
Sounds like you are a fan of Ponzi schemes. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Poor risk management and NO regulation of newly created financial intstruments (such as CDS's) were at least as important in causing the current financial meltdown as deregulation. So was (and is) the intrusion of governemnt into the problem. So far the bailouts have only made the problems worse.
Yes, you are correct, poor management and no regulation of new financial instruments were imported in the collapse as deregulation, but without the deregulation, you would not have seen the banks over leveraging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
These corporations should never have been allowed to grow to the point of becoming systemic risks.
Hence regulation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Too big to fail means too big to exist.
Is this a Haiku??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Wrong. Sharing is a learned behavior.
Sharing is a learned behaviour but greed isn't??

Please show me and the scientific community the greedy gene you claim exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie
Sorry, but I didn't realise the consumer on the street was in charge of AIG, Fannie Mae etc etc ...
Who got the mortgages? Who put their IRA and 401-k money in the stock market? Who voted for the politicians? And what happened to term limits? That one thing would do more to clean up politics than anything else.
The answer is people/consumers...but you didn't answer the question....So please explain how these "people/consumers" were in charge of AIG/Fannie Mae etc etc and responsible for them over leveraging and for insuring toxic debt??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo
The workers, including the exectutives, in every business who do not attempt to maximize profits are cheating their stockholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stundie
So stockholders are prioriety number 1 then?
As far as the management of the corporation is concerned, absolutely. Well next to their own interests of course. That's why there is a board of directors to oversee the CEO and his team.
OK then, so if stockholders are priority number 1 and these workers including executives who do not attempt to maximize profits are cheating their stockholder, then why do stockholders pay a wage and why do these workers including executives take a wage, because by doing so, according to your logic...they are cheating stockholder as there wage bill decreases stockholder profits?

I'm just jesting of course, to highlight that although stockholder profits are a priority in any company, there are far more reaching priorities.

Should welders at a ship yard not have any safety goggles/mask to protect them, because the cost of outfitting workers with safety goggles/masks decreases profit?

Of course not, hence safety overcomes priority number 1...which according to you is profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
If the government did not make these things part of the rules of the game the corporations would not be oligated to pay more than it had to and would not be obligated to give the workers benefits in excess of what the workers would work for.
Well it's a good job that government makes these rules and regulations to protect us from slave labour which many suffered from before there introduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
The unregulated business practices were legal.
Yes, but being legal doesn't justify immoral behaviour. And not all the business practices were legal.

It is like you are oblivious to the word fraud.....lol.....Unless I misunderstand and fraud is now legal??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
The companies were playing by the rules.
Not all the companies were playing by the rules.....again watch the video and pay attention because you are failing to understand what William Black is telling you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
In order for the questioned actions to be illegal there would have had to be regulations in place defining what was legal. The governments failed to put the rules in place.
The government did fail with deregulation, but again, you are not listening to what William is saying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
When slavery was legal, guess what? Slavery was legal.
WOW! I learn something new everyday with the Bobbo Fact Machine....or better known as stating the obvious machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Just because you don't like the law doesn't change the law or give you the right to disobey the law.
I know, those slave who ran off because they wanted to be free....gives them no right to disobey the slavery laws.....Hey Bobbo.

You can't disobey the law....unless you are in the financial industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
If you are going to live within the rule of law and you don't like a law then you should work to change the law.
Ahh...but slaves didn't work to change the law, because they had no rights to change the laws or even the right to vote on law.

And I can't change the law of your country, seeing as I'm not a citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
That's the way slavery was abolished.
Yep, through civil disobedience of slaves who were brave enough to run from their captor and say to hell with the law and those who were in a position of power, with the morals and integrity to understand that slavery is inhuman and barbaric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
And that's the way business practices must be regulated.
I think I'm seeing your point??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Do you think making rude remarks adds any credence to your arguments? It doesn't.
Who said that I wanted to add credence??

Maybe it is was put there to highlight the obvious, that you didn't appear to pay much attention to what William was saying in this interview.

That is evident in your arguments....or should we say lack of??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Do you think inserting a cute little animated icon into your posts communicates your understanding of the subject? It doesn't.
The little animated icon represents my mood....not my understanding of a subject matter...lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
It only makes you sound a lot like Monkey.
Does it? Oh well, I didn't realise that me and Monkey made the same sounds......from a text based internet forum with no sound.

And if that was some kind of thinly veiled insult, then you have to realise that I can think of much worse things than being compared to Monkey.

Like being compared to you Bobbo.............Perish the thought!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Is that what you want?
Not really, but if that is what YOU want to do, please feel free knowing that I'm not offended or insulted by your opinions on who you think I supposedly sound like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Is he one of your heroes?
Not that Monkey....but this Monkey used to be....He was fucking awesome when I was a kid. Monkey Magic!

Sorry Arghmonkey if you are reading this! I like you but Monkey above is "The funkiest monkey that ever popped."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
You might be taken a bit more seriously if you would pretend to be an adult.
You might be taken a bit more seriously if you were not so erroneous with your claims and information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Most of what Black said in the interview was correct. But calling the current problems and the government's intervention a Ponzi scheme is ridiculous. If you understood the problems you would see this immediately.
You clearly haven't paid any attention to the interview.....

Where does Black call the governments intervention a ponzi scheme?? <---That is fucking ridiculous....lol

If you want me to act like an adult, at least have the integrity to listen and understand what he is saying....this would save us lots of time and you a hell of a lot of embarresment from looking like a complete moron...A tag which is truly befitting...lol

I think you are intellectually punching above your waste son shine!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-10-2009, 05:52 PM
stundie's Avatar
stundie stundie is offline
Pseudo-skeptical Spanker!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The land of woo, apparently!
Posts: 633
Dragons Right Wing is Flip Flopping about like a fish out of water.......lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Because we have moral seekers who want to regulate wealth rather then protect those that might lose their wealth by fraud or theft.
WTF?? How does that stifle innovation exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Says you. I see regulation as a threat to my further moving up in my life. What society needs is guidelines, not restrictions.
No, it's nothing to do with what I say, it's just the fact. Regulations are there to protect everyone.

Do you think the regulation for wearing a seatbelt, having insurance, registration details, having working lights lights, enough tread on your tires is.......a threat to your further moving up in your life??....lol.....

Imagine a society based on guidelines?? lol The government guidelines (Not regulation) says a bottle of water should contain water, but this bottle you have brought acutally contains water and a small amount of piss......lol.....It doesn't say it contains piss in the ingredients, because Guidlelines say that you should include all ingredients but there is no regulation for this.

The company who made this is sticking to the guidelines but should they be the allowed to sell piss in your world of no regulation? lol

Yeah, who needs regulation.

You really don't put much thought into what you type Dragon sometimes. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
And you do not think that independant watch groups do not push these standards? Do you think it is all public run pushes? Sorry it is not as simple as that. You also can not go over the heads of the voters. Also we can live in a society that has independant private organizations that can push for stricter standards or they can open up the wrongs by that business, government programs(which is funded by citizens taxes)do not have to be involved. Its called the citizens taking an active role at their own choices.
Did citizens get to vote on the repealing of Glass Steagall law??

Did an independent watch group get to vote for Summers, Rubin, and Gramm who blocked the regulation on derivatives?

Did citizens get an active role and pass a law that says you can't regulate derivatives?

What a crap argument Dragon. You really have to do better than this....lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I guess you ahve not been listening, regulation by public funded government(mainly what I am talking about is Federal government in this country)
I've been listening, but you are not making an ounce of common sense. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
And I disagree.
I know, although you can't tell us why you disagree without contradicting yourself and smothering yourself in hypocrisy.

You disagree with William Black who is something of an expert, yet you have not given a single coherent arguement as to why you disagree.....lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon
Just like the word greedy is used so loosely and used in every essence when someone disagrees with that person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stundie
Sorry Dragon, but I do not call anyone greedy because they disagree with me.....lol
Never said you did. Read my post again at that point.
I did......you claimed that some people used the word greedy as an excuse for those who disagree with that person?

Who are you talking about if you are not talking about me and what as your belief that the word greedy is used when someone disagrees with that person got to do with our conversation?? lol

I'm guessing nothing.......lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Yes, but greedy also has many definitions and can be vague and broad. So it is pointless to use that negative word to describe even a person at that moment you disagree with.
Greed is a subjective word, but I never called a person greedy because they disagree with me.....lol

So isn't it pointless to point this out when I have not used this negative word for those who I disagree with?? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I suppose I should ask you what is greedy to you or how can a person be greedy in YOUR eyes?
John Goodman being greedy....
http://www.tubearoo.com/articles/519...?autoplay=true

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stundie
So what is the purpose of government if it is not regulating rules and restrictions?
Difference between regulations/restrictions and laws. Also it is how some in this nation have been trying to pass laws on the national level when they should not be able to. Called unConstitutional in this country.
I asked you what is the purpose of government if it is not regulating rules and restrictions....to protect every citizen?? And your response is there is differences between regulations/restrictions and laws......lol

Stating the obvious is not answering the question Dragon......lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
You also misrepresent my postion too. I have always argued that federal regulations are not Constitutional, even at times State government too can be added to this. I want state by state laws that are voted by the locals not some far away leaders in Washington DC. Understand now? Or do I have to explain how this nation looks at the difference between state and Federal powers?
I do not misrepresent your position...it's just that cannot conform a decent argument without flip floping between what you want regulating and don't want regulating.

So for instance, you do not want regulation on private business/finance/free market etc etc....Yet I bet you my bottom dollar that you want regulation on immigration.

Rather than just agree that regulation if used correctly and wisely is a very good thing which protects us all, you would rather argue the moronic point that no regulation is the best thing since sliced bread and falsely suggest that it was regulation that put us into this financial mess.

p.s. You do not have to explain the difference between state and federal powers, because you will be stating the fucking obvious........Yet again! lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stundie
So the job of government is not to regulate??
The role of the Federal government is explained in the 10th Amendment:
From defense to taxes on certain items.
Which are ALL regulated you moron.....lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stundie
So the private sector is above such checks and balances?? Are they morally on higher ground??
Can you point where I said that? Because I never implied or said that.
Of course I can point to where you said that, it gives me nothing but pleasure pointing out your general stupidity and blatant denial....lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon from a previous post where he implies and says
Yes, checks and balances was meant within the government, but not in the private sector.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I've met some simpletons on line Dragon, but is it any wonder with blatant lies like, that we all think you are little bit nice but dim.

When I say we...I mean me and nobody else!.......lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Play book? I do not even watch the guy, except for what people post on here. So what play book is this again? I go by my own thoughts and experiences. No group think here. Nice fallacy use too by the way.
Well maybe O'Reilly is a little OT for you...Maybe your a Hannity fan, or a Limbaugh Lover, or even a Coulter Champion. lol

The play book which claim not to be aware is probably down to your ignorance. Here is a good book about all the tactics you employ....

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

Its free to read....(Shit, I hope Bobbo doesn't hit me with his wrath and mantra that nothing is free! lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I think you need to stop twisting peoples words and actually read them.
I would ask your for evidence of your claims, but I have already highlighted that you are a psuedoskeptic.....lol

So lets play a game of Stundies Catchphrase to see if you can spot what you are missing.

Just say what you see Dragon.....lol

1st Clue....

2nd Clue...

3rd Clue...


Can you guess what it is yet??

Clue 1....Eyeball/ Clue 2....Ronald Reagan / Clue 3....Knee Bandage.

Have you spotted the Eye, Ron, Knee yet??

I didn't think so......lol
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-10-2009, 07:30 PM
stundie's Avatar
stundie stundie is offline
Pseudo-skeptical Spanker!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The land of woo, apparently!
Posts: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Man, can you not read peoples posts?
See Stundies Catchphrase......lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Seriously, someone answers your questions, could you at least sit still and try to comprehend their responses? I answered you loud and clear.
Of course you did Dragon, you answered it the same way you answered the question I asked you about critical thinking and skepticism.

By imagining and pretending that you have answered it......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
1....just like you assumed I watch Bill Oreilly? Talk about double standards...
2....the government is NOT suppose to(meaning the US government is not suppose to)
I would asked you if the government shouldn't regulate the financial industry, then who should, but no doubt you'll tell me I have reading problems and that you have answered it.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Please stay with the conversation here Stundie.
I'm trying Dragon but your thoughts are as clear as fog on a cloudy day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon
Its one thing to have laws that stop fraud and theft and such. But if someone makes money legitly, stop turning them into crooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stundie
So a ponzi scheme is legal and I'm turning them into crooks?? lol WOW!!
Where did I say that a ponzi scheme is legal? Talk about assumptions of what you think I said.
You accused me of turning those who made money of the Ponzi schemes that William Black talks about into crooks.

Where am I turning those who made money the legit way into crooks?? lol

Talk about assumptions of what you think I am claiming or that William Black is claiming. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Yes I am, it is pretty basic logic. If we did not do something(we as in federal government), we would not have to to OTHER steps like the Act you mentioned.
I suppose by your logic, if we didn't have any gold or money, we wouldn't have to use other steps like the Glass Steagall law which got us into this mess...lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
What do you think the The Gold Confiscation Act was? A city block gold party?
An Executive Order forbidding the hoarding of Gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon
We need to remember that banks are not int he business to make money, its customers are(hence interest you gain from savings).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie
So how does a bank survive if it is not making money??
There is a difference between making money for itself and holding money for its.
I know there is a difference, but I didnt as you for the difference....lol

Again you think by stating the obvious, you have answered the question when I'm not sure how you think a bank which is not in the business of making money, is suppose to survive other than pointing out the difference between making money and holding it.......

I think I am witnessing artificial stupidity....Unless it's natural.....lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
[Well we could of made it clear that the banks are not in the business to make money like this? What a concept.
I think that concept is called REGULATION. lol

Something which you hate apparently......lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
You do know that originally banks were to hold wealth by the public, right? Not to actually make a profit.
I understand how banks are suppose to work.

Sounds like you are making a argument against free trade/capitalism now. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I believe someone on here(I think it was Posiden)that posted a video on history of banks. Very simple concept on banks and their roles. But we as a society have messed it up more so with thinking we can control what other people do with their money...but this is another topic.
I watched a great documentary on the BBC called The City Uncovered with Evan Davis which explained the roles of banks too.

If banks were suppose to work the old fashion way, do you think that it was regulation that made them change or is it deregulation and the belief in free markets that changed the way they work....lol

Crying about how the banks used to work and then in the same breath supporting less regulation is gobsmacking...but typical.

Now I'm off out.....to get stoned.....will respond to the rest later....If I can be arsed.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:15 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
I am not going to be bothered to respond anymore in this thread. It went from a actual discussion to a free for all insult posts by you Stundie. No thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:29 AM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
Sharing is a learned behaviour but greed isn't?
Wow, you finally get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
The answer is people/consumers...but you didn't answer the question....So please explain how these "people/consumers" were in charge of AIG/Fannie Mae etc etc and responsible for them over leveraging and for insuring toxic debt?
Welcome to the real world. Leave your utopian dreams at the border. Human nature is what it is, not what you want it to be. Throughout all of human history wherever there has been a demand (for anything) some people would supply what is demanded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
I'm just jesting of course, to highlight that although stockholder profits are a priority in any company, there are far more reaching priorities. ... safety overcomes priority number 1...which according to you is profits.
Wrong on both counts, again. You really don't get it. Safety, wages, benefits, etc are are the means to an end, just like advertising and public relations. These things are not the end, the number one priority, which is the profit produced by the corporation and unless a profit is produced the business will fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
... being legal doesn't justify immoral behaviour. ...
Of course it doesn't.

Corporations do not have souls. They are amoral creations. The only purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for those who have created it. (And please don't bring up non-profits and charitables.) Corporate behavior cannot be moral nor can it be immoral.

Most countries do not regulate morality in their laws. Perhaps you would wish to do so in your utopia, but it doesn't work in the real world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
....again watch the video and pay attention because you are failing to understand what William Black is telling you.
Wrong again. At least you are consistent. It seems cannot grasp the notion that I, or anyone else, could understand the situation and disagree with Black. You seem to be equating an understanding of the problem with agreeing with him. You are wrong in doing this. He is one person. He has an opinion. What he states is not fact, it is his opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stundie View Post
I think you are intellectually punching above your waste son shine!!
I will refer you to one of my favorite quotes: "In a battle of wits, you sir are unarmed.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:51 AM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I am not going to be bothered to respond anymore in this thread. It went from a actual discussion to a free for all insult posts by you Stundie. No thanks.
CNBC has aired a good documentary by David Faber called "House of Cards". It is worth watching. I say it is good but not great because he ignored the contributions Congress made to the problems. On the other hand, he only had two hours for his presentation, and he focused on the business end of the causes of the problems.

We are way too close to the situation today, and of course it is still evolving, to fully grasp all of it. Someday books will be written about it and people will study it as they have studied the great depression. One thing I am convinced of is that the economic landscape has been changed dramatically, and probably fundamentally.


You are probably right about responding to stundie. He seems much more interested in insults than an exchange of ideas. Fairly common behavior from teens on the net. He may get some kind of a rush from talking out of his ass to someone he thinks is a responsible adult. I think he is trying very hard to emulate Monkey. Really more humorous than anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:37 PM
stundie's Avatar
stundie stundie is offline
Pseudo-skeptical Spanker!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The land of woo, apparently!
Posts: 633
Quinn Abercromby takes out the beast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
I am not going to be bothered to respond anymore in this thread.
Well I don't why you bothered, you didn't have a point other than objection based on ignorance. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
It went from a actual discussion to a free for all insult posts by you Stundie. No thanks.
You are right, it was never a discussion, it was a work out for your cognitive dissonance, a triathalon of denial, ignorance and barefaced lies. lol

Running away again?? Typical........lol You would rather lie to yourself and others on a public forum, rather than admit you are wrong! lol

You obviously think by admitting you are wrong is a sign of weakness, probably brought on by your overly conservative nature and overtones you bring into most posts, in way which you think is righteous and true! That is your weakeness, the lack of intergrity and honesty.

It is nothing more than cowardice....If you are a Dragon, you are more Godzuki than Godzilla! lol

And your weakness is my strength....lol...Until you realise this and start being more honest with yourself, then I'll have no strength left and no reason to mock you.

Until that day Dragon, we can never hold a civil discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-11-2009, 10:00 PM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
CNBC has aired a good documentary by David Faber called "House of Cards". It is worth watching. I say it is good but not great because he ignored the contributions Congress made to the problems. On the other hand, he only had two hours for his presentation, and he focused on the business end of the causes of the problems.

We are way too close to the situation today, and of course it is still evolving, to fully grasp all of it. Someday books will be written about it and people will study it as they have studied the great depression. One thing I am convinced of is that the economic landscape has been changed dramatically, and probably fundamentally.


You are probably right about responding to stundie. He seems much more interested in insults than an exchange of ideas. Fairly common behavior from teens on the net. He may get some kind of a rush from talking out of his ass to someone he thinks is a responsible adult. I think he is trying very hard to emulate Monkey. Really more humorous than anything else.
Thanks for the info on the program.

As far as Stundie, I am learning about him as a person that he is only a decent discussion maker/joiner if you agree with him. As soon as you make a comment that is not aligned with his views he goes into mock mode or insult mode. I mean not once did I insult him and even at times I made the effort to say i was not directing comments towards him. Well when he makes a comment that does not have an insult in it, then I will entertain his remarks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Michelson and Morely experiments with light spacedout Space and Time 212 11-29-2008 09:21 PM
Gustav headed for current that fuels big storms (AP) NewsFeed Science and Nature News Feeds 0 08-29-2008 11:46 PM
The Vision Thing brodix General Philosophy 40 05-02-2006 03:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network