to wuf: faultlines and the rich, obama's failings

[d0zer]

Rich are richer and poor are poorer because of regulations of the government.

That seems like an absurd over-simplification of a complex issue.

You can cherry-pick examples of extreme regulation hurting the little guy just like you could cherry-pick examples of extreme deregulation allowing the big guy to screw over the little guy.

The fact is that we need regulation of some form, and we also need taxes. The extent of each is up for debate, but laisse-faire economic libertarianism taken to an extreme allows for things like the american housing bubble crash to occur when groupthink sets into the minds of the "great" fiscal minds of wall street. Canada for example has much stricter lending policies and its housing market was relatively unscathed.

I know there are some bullshit regulations out there, and they should be dealt with, but I also don't believe we can throw the baby out with the bathwater and have wild-west economics either.

[IowaSkinsFan]

That seems like an absurd over-simplification of a complex issue.

You can cherry-pick examples of extreme regulation hurting the little guy just like you could cherry-pick examples of extreme deregulation allowing the big guy to screw over the little guy.

Give me one example big guy screwing over little guy without doing something currently illegal and without government help

The fact is that we need regulation of some form, and we also need taxes. The extent of each is up for debate, but laisse-faire economic libertarianism taken to an extreme allows for things like the american housing bubble crash to occur when groupthink sets into the minds of the "great" fiscal minds of wall street. Canada for example has much stricter lending policies and its housing market was relatively unscathed.

The american housing bubble without a doubt was caused by regulation that artificially increased demand for home ownership from the government forcing banks to make loans to people who wouldnt be able to pay the loan if they met even a little bit of a snag income wise. The government caused unstrict lending policies.

I know there are some bullshit regulations out there, and they should be dealt with, but I also don't believe we can throw the baby out with the bathwater and have wild-west economics either.

You don't believe it but that doesn't make it any less correct.

K I'm bored I came back.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The fact is that we need regulation of some form, and we also need taxes. The extent of each is up for debate, but laisse-faire economic libertarianism taken to an extreme allows for things like the american housing bubble crash to occur when groupthink sets into the minds of the "great" fiscal minds of wall street. Canada for example has much stricter lending policies and its housing market was relatively unscathed.

The US had very strong regulations on housing loans. They strongly encouraged banks to make shitty loans in the name of the "American Dream." The housing crash had everything to do with regulation.

Having strict regulations the other way doesn't help much either. When you have very strict, conservative lending policies you end up fucking the middle class because banks who actually would have take a chance on them are prohibited from giving them a loan. I'm not surprised the housing market was unscathed because your prices we're probably falling well before.

That being said, if the regulations of Canada matched the normal due diligence a good bank would do before giving a loan, then they would be fine.

[d0zer]

ISF: monsanto vs small farmers

The US had very strong regulations on housing loans. They strongly encouraged banks to make shitty loans in the name of the "American Dream." The housing crash had everything to do with regulation.

I'll admit it's very possible that I don't understand the housing crash, but if the US had such strong regulations on housing loans, why were american banks allowed to hand out risky 50 year mortgages to bustos? Stricter lending policies could have prevented that.

Having strict regulations the other way doesn't help much either. When you have very strict, conservative lending policies you end up fucking the middle class because banks who actually would have take a chance on them are prohibited from giving them a loan. I'm not surprised the housing market was unscathed because your prices we're probably falling well before.

That being said, if the regulations of Canada matched the normal due diligence a good bank would do before giving a loan, then they would be fine.

You speak as if we have the option of one extreme or the other, and then seem to cautiously endorse a more moderate approach to regulation which is exactly the approach I support. I'm not suggesting we regulate the market so heavily it can't breathe -- I recognize the problems with that approach but I also believe the other extreme has its share of problems. Balance.

[IowaSkinsFan]

ISF: monsanto vs small farmers

Explain. I'm not familiar with this.

I'll admit it's very possible that I don't understand the housing crash, but if the US had such strong regulations on housing loans, why were american banks allowed to hand out risky 50 year mortgages to bustos? Stricter lending policies could have prevented that.

Banks regulate themselves. They will not make bad loans because bad loans means they will lose money. The only way this lead to a good outcome for banks was because the government bailed them out and the banks knew they were going to do so.

You speak as if we have the option of one extreme or the other, and then seem to cautiously endorse a more moderate approach to regulation which is exactly the approach I support. I'm not suggesting we regulate the market so heavily it can't breathe -- I recognize the problems with that approach but I also believe the other extreme has its share of problems. Balance.

Max nor I support a "balanced" approach. It's easy to say "Everything needs a balanced approach." But its simply a logical fallacy. I'm not saying you should fuck hookers all the time when your married or not fuck hookers at all, you should take a balanced approach, fuck hookers sometimes. When something is amoral conceptually there's no reason to have a balanced approach.

I'm not saying you are saying that, as you believe no regulation creates problems. But I challenge you to look markets and ask yourself "Are the problems with this market because it is unregulated or because of regulations?"