Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
which will fail.   Lets analyse:---

There are human activities, other than living beyond your means 
and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.

To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate 
against these dangers ?

Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.

So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
not the market have immediately corrected ?!

It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.

I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and 
creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
mentality. 

IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would 
have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be 
stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have 
consequences for the future"  ?

IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
 optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
 Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
 mindset change promoted by education.
 
 BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important 
 aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
 will take responsibility for your health, and that you can 
 just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
 
 == Chris Glur.

AliBama@gmail wrote:

> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation of economic activety.

It isnt a fad, and its not economic activity that anyone with a clue advocates
the regulation of, but something much more basic, what banks can do etc.

> I suspect this is simplistic popularism which will fail.

More fool you. And it isnt simplistic at all.

Not one of the canadian or australian banks have imploded spectacularly
and there might just be a reason why that hasnt happened.

> Lets analyse:---

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of doing that.

> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.

Irrelevant to whether say the regulation of banking is feasible.

> To what extent can/does society successfully
> legislate/regulate against these dangers ?

Society has successfully regulated banking for quite a long time now.

> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.

Mindlessly simplistic.

What matters is what is possible with the property being
mortgaged price wise, not any commoditys basket.

And even if the borrower is upside down on the mortgage, it
makes absolutely no sense to legislate so the borrower can
just hand the keys back and get off scot free if they have chosen
to borrow a higher percentage of the value of the property.

> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that
> you foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..",
> would not the market have immediately corrected ?!

Nope, because proclamations like that dont turn out to always be correct.

> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down,
> that which well educated persons already know.

More fool you. And its completely stupid to expect
that all borrowers will be educated people anyway.

It makes a lot of sense to require the lender to rub
the borrower's nose in the basics, particularly what
can happen to the interest rate being charged in the
future, if that isnt fixed for the term of the loan, and
what that can do to the repayments on that loan.

> The solution is to spread the knowledge,

Hell of a lot easier said than done, particularly when the
lenders have a big incentive to not do that when they are
getting massive commissions on the most risky loans.

> by eg. openly mocking the promoters of smoking
> and gambling  - like competent parents would do.

No 'education' can have anything like the impact of the worst
of the salesarseholes with the borrower in front of them.

Thats why all modern first world countrys have consumer protection laws.

You dont approve ?  Your problem.

> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility,

It does a hell of a lot more than ONLY that.

> and creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK' mentality.

There is no real alternative with something like smoking which isnt feasible to make illegal.

> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies
> is popularism, herdism, political-correctness.

Like it or lump it. Baying at the moon about that isnt going to change a thing.

> What would have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said
> "go out and shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes,
> don't be stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been
> living beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
> consequences for the future"  ?

That aint the reason for the sub prime fiasco.

> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.

There might just be a reason for the longest boom in recorded history.

> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without
> a mindset change promoted by education.

You cant change fundamental mindsets by 'education'

You can stop the worst of the salesarseholes exploiting some mindsets by regulation.

> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important aspect of society.

Like hell it does.

> The old idea that "the medical authorities will take
> responsibility for your health, and that you can
> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.

There never ever was any such idea.

<AliBama@gmail> wrote in message news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---

What do you really want. A stockexchange that works like las Vegas or having 
shareprices reflecting ingenuity hard work and smart marketing? If the 
latter then stop the wheel of fortune and regulate that once that you buy 
stock you cannot sell it for at least a year. This will also clean up 
financial institutions like banks. Market does work but Las Vegas is a 
rigged and regulated game where you statistically allways pay and thereby 
lose. .


R

<AliBama@gmail> wrote in message news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>
> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>
> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
> against these dangers ?
>
> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>
> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>
> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>
> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
> mentality.
>
> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
> consequences for the future"  ?
>
> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
> mindset change promoted by education.
>
> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
>
> == Chris Glur.
>

There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that some 
people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are obviously in panic mode, and 
rattled by your post. They are the ones who would like a big government 
watching, and controlling all of us.

On Jan 16, 2:11 pm, AliBama@gmail wrote:


 there is no panic here, only a fricking idiot would be for free
markets after what we have seen, and, obtw, history has proven that
free markets are a con game that ends in disaster.



show me a criminal that is for regulation


" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "


These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
the people.
Abraham Lincoln



Face it, conservatives tell you government doesn't work and then get
elected and try to prove it to you.



We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt


The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith



 "There is  a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire  because it removes the need
for
critical thought.  The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively  at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology.  This is especially
appealing  to the less intellectually curious.

 Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner.  For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples  chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."

 Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will,  in most cases,  toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers  and security.  The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"


q.  Ultimately, every problem is blamed on government, especially in
the ironic
instance when government fails to take on a more active role in
regulating business practices.

 a. Absolutely. Largely because government doesn't get involved until
there's already a failure. If there's a market failure - let's say as
an example, in health care.  The market is given a long time to try to
resolve the matter. But only after a time of dissatisfaction with the
results of the failure, the public inveighs on the government to act
to correct it.  If government's response is not perfect - no matter
how complex or intractable the problem or how much improvement is
made, the anti-statist crowd will scream it's a failure of government
and blame the entire problem on government, never acknowledging the
market failure that dumped the issue on the government's lap.
retro


 what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
 what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.

 our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson


definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases

While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill

"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol



 Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
   of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
   restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
                                                        - Bertrand
Russell


 libertarianism is the hand maiden to fascism, libertarianism is the
decay that leads to fascism.
 fascism is libertarianism in decay.


 "there is another view, one that may come to the
fore if the recession lingers and millions lose their jobs or homes,
while those who brought on the disaster remain wealthy beyond any
dream available to normal people. “By the time of the American
Revolution there was already a robust plebeian resentment of the
aristocrat as parasite, a privileged nonproducer living off the hard
labor of those he lorded over,” Fraser writes. It has not helped that
the financial lords have not always been subtle about their
superiority, as when Jay Gould, the robber baron who ran railroads in
the late 19th century, boasted he could hire one half of the working
class to kill the other half."

 “Wall Street had proved itself not only ethically challenged and
dangerously
omnipotent but, more damning than that, omni-incompetent.” And he
continues: “During the boom years of the 1920s, the white-shoe world
of J. P. Morgan had accepted credit for the nation’s good fortune and
been portrayed as a conclave of wise men. Now, under the new
circumstances of economic ruination, that same world was treated as
criminally irresponsible, pathetic even, an object not only of censure
but of mockery. And there is perhaps nothing more fatal for the life
expectancy of an elite than to be viewed as ridiculous.”



``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous."


" It's actually sort of interesting that while some
people are putting forth theories about what has led us to these bank
failures (indy Mac), bail outs (Bear Stearns and Freddie and Fannie
Mac so far), weak dollar, and the general quagmire and impending
financial disaster - another camp seems to be very good at saying why
none of those are the cause (without a lot of data or rationale) but
have no counter explanation.

In fact this camp I think is mostly in habit mode their years of
denial that anything is wrong. Face it, we've had seven years of
(mostly partisan based)  denial from this camp. The deficit was not a
problem, the rampant dereg and nonexistent enforcement was a plus not
a minus, tax cuts were a stimuli, globalization meant jobs and cheap
prices, etc. etc.

They have an excuse why every warning sign was not an issue, why every
evil was really a good (e.g., remember the weak dollar means US
manufacturing jobs), why every stumble was unrelated.

And now we are looking down the throat of full economic collapse. The
fed is bailing out private entities at $100s of billions of dollars,
the dollar is in the basement, millions are losing their homes, many
millions more are going bankrupt ( more children are living through
their parents bankruptcy than are living through their parents
divorce), millions are losing their jobs, the subprime debacle is
knocking the legs out from under our financial institutions, bank
failures are underway, the stock market has surrendered the last 2
years growth (and is down in inflation adjusted terms for over 7
years). I could go on but that gives some idea of what we're looking
at in scale.

And these folks are still saying  well THAT's not the cause. Or that
theory has flaws. The closest they have to an explanation for what's
happened is blaming the victims, it's home buyers fault the
deregulated mortgage/finacial industry is in subprime collapse. It's
medias fault the public consumer confidence is at record lows, etc.,
etc. (Shit we still have the Fredi Fizz's out there saying everything
is glorious.)

They have no explanation in theory to offer for conditions. And to
them each facet is an unrelated minor detail. (Shit we're still seeing
the market corrects all things crowd out there - crowing as if that
means there's not undue suffering in lost pensions, lost jobs and lost
homes.)

SO pray tell us the Friedmanist explanation of this conflux of
disasters.

I would note the anti-globalization, anti-dereg, pro-fiscal
responsibility crowd has a coherent explanation that holds together
and explains this confluence in an Occams razor passing method."

The quibblers and deniers strike me as flat earthers with lots of
reasons why others explanations are wrong, but no explanation of their
own, To them it's just turtles all the way down. (Less this
philosophical reference throw you -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)
retro.


"The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne



teddy roosevelt

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals.


"Just another example of the "CONservative movement" screwing over the
American people.

Deregulation is such a canard.

Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean

Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'



"disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern
conservatism."
paul krugman



Thoughts from the Great Depression
As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass
consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of
existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to
provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and
services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of
achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by
1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently
produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by
taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers
denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products
that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in
new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in
the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game
stopped.

(Eccles, Marriner S. 1951. Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal
Recollections (New York: Alfred A. Knopf): p. 76

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times: 
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workers voting for republicans 'is' like chickens voting for
Colonel Sanders.
(that includes plucked millionaires too)
--------------------------------

RussellT wrote:
> <AliBama@gmail> wrote in message
> news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
>> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
>> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>>
>> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
>> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
>> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>>
>> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
>> against these dangers ?
>>
>> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
>> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
>> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
>> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
>> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>>
>> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
>> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
>> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
>> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>>
>> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
>> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
>> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
>> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>>
>> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
>> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
>> mentality.
>>
>> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
>> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
>> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
>> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
>> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
>> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
>> consequences for the future"  ?
>>
>> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
>> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
>> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
>> mindset change promoted by education.
>>
>> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
>> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
>> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
>> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.

> There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that some people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are 
> obviously in panic mode, and rattled by your post.

What a terminal fuckwit.

Nothing 'rattled' about having enough of a clue to realise that
its perfectly possible to regulate something like banking.

> They are the ones who would like a big government watching, and controlling all of us.

Wrong, as always.

Some of us actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that the
worst of the spivs and con men can cause considerable damage to
the financial system if the worst of their activitys are not controlled.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ponzi schemes do happen.

"Rod Speed"  wrote in message 
news:6tcthtFads8kU1@mid.individual.net...
> RussellT wrote:
>> <AliBama@gmail> wrote in message
>> news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>>> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
>>> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
>>> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>>>
>>> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
>>> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
>>> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>>>
>>> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
>>> against these dangers ?
>>>
>>> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
>>> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
>>> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
>>> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
>>> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>>>
>>> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
>>> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
>>> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
>>> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>>>
>>> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
>>> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
>>> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
>>> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>>>
>>> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
>>> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
>>> mentality.
>>>
>>> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
>>> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
>>> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
>>> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
>>> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
>>> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
>>> consequences for the future"  ?
>>>
>>> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
>>> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
>>> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
>>> mindset change promoted by education.
>>>
>>> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
>>> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
>>> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
>>> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
>
>> There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that some 
>> people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are obviously in panic mode, 
>> and rattled by your post.
>
> What a terminal fuckwit.
>
> Nothing 'rattled' about having enough of a clue to realise that
> its perfectly possible to regulate something like banking.
>
>> They are the ones who would like a big government watching, and 
>> controlling all of us.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
> Some of us actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that the
> worst of the spivs and con men can cause considerable damage to
> the financial system if the worst of their activitys are not controlled.
>
> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ponzi schemes do 
> happen.
>

So, someone did a Ponzi scheme and you want to come down hard on all the 
people? This is your approach: "One of you ten people is the murderer, so in 
order to get him and have justice served, we shoot all of you". Try to get a 
grip Mr. Rod Slow Speed.

On Jan 16, 8:47 pm, "RussellT"  wrote:
> "Rod Speed"  wrote in message
>
> news:6tcthtFads8kU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > RussellT wrote:
> >> <AliBama@gmail> wrote in message
> >>news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
> >>> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
> >>> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
> >>> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>
> >>> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
> >>> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
> >>> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>
> >>> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
> >>> against these dangers ?
>
> >>> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
> >>> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
> >>> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
> >>> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
> >>> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>
> >>> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
> >>> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
> >>> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
> >>> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>
> >>> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
> >>> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
> >>> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
> >>> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>
> >>> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
> >>> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
> >>> mentality.
>
> >>> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
> >>> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
> >>> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
> >>> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
> >>> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
> >>> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
> >>> consequences for the future"  ?
>
> >>> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
> >>> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
> >>> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
> >>> mindset change promoted by education.
>
> >>> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
> >>> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
> >>> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
> >>> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
>
> >> There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that some
> >> people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are obviously in panic mode> >> and rattled by your post.
>
> > What a terminal fuckwit.
>
> > Nothing 'rattled' about having enough of a clue to realise that
> > its perfectly possible to regulate something like banking.
>
> >> They are the ones who would like a big government watching, and
> >> controlling all of us.
>
> > Wrong, as always.
>
> > Some of us actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that the
> > worst of the spivs and con men can cause considerable damage to
> > the financial system if the worst of their activitys are not controlled> > Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ponzi schemes do
> > happen.
>
> So, someone did a Ponzi scheme and you want to come down hard on all the
> people? This is your approach: "One of you ten people is the murderer, so in
> order to get him and have justice served, we shoot all of you". Try to get a
> grip Mr. Rod Slow Speed.

 no one is going to shoot everyone, that is the response of a
extremist. what we are saying is that murder is a crime, and to
enforce the law, it must apply to everyone equally. we have no idea
who will commit murder, so the law covers everyone.

RussellT wrote
> Rod Speed  wrote
>> RussellT wrote
>>> <AliBama@gmail> wrote in message
>>> news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>>>> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
>>>> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
>>>> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>>>>
>>>> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
>>>> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
>>>> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>>>>
>>>> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
>>>> against these dangers ?
>>>>
>>>> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
>>>> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
>>>> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
>>>> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
>>>> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>>>>
>>>> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
>>>> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
>>>> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
>>>> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
>>>> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
>>>> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
>>>> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>>>>
>>>> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
>>>> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
>>>> mentality.
>>>>
>>>> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
>>>> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
>>>> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
>>>> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
>>>> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
>>>> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
>>>> consequences for the future"  ?
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
>>>> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
>>>> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
>>>> mindset change promoted by education.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
>>>> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
>>>> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
>>>> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
>>
>>> There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that
>>> some people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are obviously in
>>> panic mode, and rattled by your post.
>>
>> What a terminal fuckwit.
>>
>> Nothing 'rattled' about having enough of a clue to realise that
>> its perfectly possible to regulate something like banking.
>>
>>> They are the ones who would like a big government watching, and
>>> controlling all of us.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> Some of us actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that the
>> worst of the spivs and con men can cause considerable damage to
>> the financial system if the worst of their activitys are not
>> controlled.

>> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ponzi schemes do happen.

> So, someone did a Ponzi scheme and you want to come down hard on all the people?

Nope, I notice that what the worst of the spivs and con men in the banking industry
just did came within an ace of imploding the entire world's financial system, actually.

If you're actually too stupid to have even noticed that Canada
and Australia worked out how to regulate their banks to avoid
ANY of their banks imploding spectacularly, your problem...

> This is your approach:

You're lying, as always.

> "One of you ten people is the murderer, so in order to get him and have justice served, we shoot all of you".

Never said a word about shooting anyone, fuckwit.

I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose if the FACT that its
perfectly possible to regulate banks so the worst of the spivs and
con men cant bring the entire country's financial system undone.

> Try to get a grip Mr. Rod Slow Speed.

Let go of your dick, child, before you end up completely blind.

On Jan 16, 3:11 pm, AliBama@gmail wrote:

> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.

Nope. Regulation is not about spreading knowledge, but about
preventing the small interest of an individual or organization to do
harm to others.

For example, a mine owner knows that his toxic waste spilled into the
river harm the people downstream.
However his market is world wide. Even if all the people in the town
downstream die, his profit will decline with less than 0.01%. By
contrast, if he invest to build and operate a waste treatment plant,
for the life of operation this will amount an 25% decline in profit.
The market rules tells him that he shall forget about people and just
run the operation as before. However, a government regulator can fine
him with tens of times his profit or even close the mine entirely.
This is a sure way to make the business to take care of people's
health.

Another problem, is the false belief that markets are intelligent.
This is just a false myth. In reality, markets are quite stupid. Just
look at what they did with the economy today. Contrary to a widespread
false belief, markets are thinking on the short term only. The
mortgage brokers signing loans without checking the income of the
borrower never thought that in the long term his actions will destroy
the bank he is working for and loose his job. The imbecile just look
at what nice car bought his friend next cubicle, and wanted something
better to twist the chicks eyes toward him. The banks didn't enforced
lending practices because they unloaded them as AAA rated derivatives
and they were interested only to maximize the ROI to shareholders for
the current year and never spent any serious thought over what will
happen if 3 years ahead the derivative market collapse. The rating
agencies , payed by the banks were also interested into maximize their
profit before the next meeting with shareholders and nothing else.
Markets are not smart nor intelligent forward looking, they are just
idiotically imbecile looking for tomorrow. In this context, regulation
is mandatory to save the capitalism from the capitalists greed.

The third problem is misunderstanding of economic. The naive say: A
system is composed of parts, if the parts act to maximize their own
benefit, then the benefit of the society as a whole will be maximized.
Well, nothing falser than that. Here is an example:
2 companies make aspirin, they both sponsor an academic research
program to study if there are new disease that can be cured by
aspirin. One day, however the CEO of first company gets greedy and
say
- If I use the money I use to sponsor the research into marketing I
can increase my market.
Well, done. He cut the research funds and invest in Paris Hilton
commercials licking his brand of aspirin. The marketing campaign
works, his share on the market increase with 10%. However, the need
for aspirin didn't rise, consumers buy as much aspirin as before. The
10% market share was taken from the second producer. The second
company, seeing his market share decline have no other option but to
use all the resources available for a marketing campaign with Paris
Hilton licking aspirin, to regain his lost market share. The campaign
works and the market shares stabilize at the levels before the
marketing war.
Yes, every company act in it own self interest, yet:
- In the end none of them is better than before, only Paris Hilton is
richer with some tens of millions for every licked aspirin
- Some researchers lost their job when university cut staff to cope
with lost sponsorship
- The society as a whole (6 Billion people) lost the chance to
discover that some disease without a known cure  may be alleviated or
even cured with aspirin


I hope I made it clear enough. There is nothing intelligent nor
valuable in unregulated free markets.
Markets are as imbecile as they can get, and without regulation to
prevent them to do harm to the society, the markets will do the most
despicable crimes in order to maximize the return of investment.
Do not fall for the classical conservative lie that deregulation is
good. This lie is promoted by thieves and weak minded criminals who
wants to maximize their quick profit at ANY cost to society and even
to themselves. The promoters of deregulation are just to idiots to be
able to think what are they doing.  Unregulated markets are evil, and
the promoters of laissez-faire are the worshipers of the Evil himself.

"Rod Speed"  wrote in message 
news:6td3mrFad8upU1@mid.individual.net...
> RussellT wrote
>> Rod Speed  wrote
>>> RussellT wrote
>>>> <AliBama@gmail> wrote in message
>>>> news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>>>>> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
>>>>> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
>>>>> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>>>>>
>>>>> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
>>>>> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
>>>>> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>>>>>
>>>>> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
>>>>> against these dangers ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
>>>>> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
>>>>> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
>>>>> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
>>>>> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
>>>>> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
>>>>> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
>>>>> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
>>>>> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
>>>>> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
>>>>> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
>>>>> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
>>>>> mentality.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
>>>>> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
>>>>> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
>>>>> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
>>>>> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
>>>>> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
>>>>> consequences for the future"  ?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
>>>>> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
>>>>> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
>>>>> mindset change promoted by education.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
>>>>> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
>>>>> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
>>>>> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
>>>
>>>> There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that
>>>> some people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are obviously in
>>>> panic mode, and rattled by your post.
>>>
>>> What a terminal fuckwit.
>>>
>>> Nothing 'rattled' about having enough of a clue to realise that
>>> its perfectly possible to regulate something like banking.
>>>
>>>> They are the ones who would like a big government watching, and
>>>> controlling all of us.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>> Some of us actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that the
>>> worst of the spivs and con men can cause considerable damage to
>>> the financial system if the worst of their activitys are not
>>> controlled.
>
>>> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ponzi schemes do 
>>> happen.
>
>> So, someone did a Ponzi scheme and you want to come down hard on all the 
>> people?
>
> Nope, I notice that what the worst of the spivs and con men in the banking 
> industry
> just did came within an ace of imploding the entire world's financial 
> system, actually.
>
> If you're actually too stupid to have even noticed that Canada
> and Australia worked out how to regulate their banks to avoid
> ANY of their banks imploding spectacularly, your problem...
>
>> This is your approach:
>
> You're lying, as always.
>
>> "One of you ten people is the murderer, so in order to get him and have 
>> justice served, we shoot all of you".
>
> Never said a word about shooting anyone, fuckwit.
>
> I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose if the FACT that its
> perfectly possible to regulate banks so the worst of the spivs and
> con men cant bring the entire country's financial system undone.
>
>> Try to get a grip Mr. Rod Slow Speed.
>
> Let go of your dick, child, before you end up completely blind.
>

Hello Rod Slow Speed. Australia and Canada have a different type of banking 
system, with advantages and disadvantages. Over the recent business cycle, 
the resource economies generally had government surpluses and a positive 
balance of trade. The US had many other factors. One was the need to 
stimulate the economy by pumping up, all they had left, namely the housing 
and auto sales. This followed the downturns of the dot-com bubble and 9/11. 
In the good ole days, manufacturing could have been stimulated in a broader 
sense.

RussellT wrote:
> "Rod Speed"  wrote in message
> news:6td3mrFad8upU1@mid.individual.net...
>> RussellT wrote
>>> Rod Speed  wrote
>>>> RussellT wrote
>>>>> <AliBama@gmail> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1232135982.726931@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>>>>>> Understandably its the fad to promote increased regulation
>>>>>> of economic activety.  I suspect this is simplistic popularism
>>>>>> which will fail.   Lets analyse:---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are human activities, other than living beyond your means
>>>>>> and following absurdly optimistic fads, which cause proven harm
>>>>>> to dumb victims. Eg. smoking tobaco and HIV dangerous practices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To what extent can/does society successfully legislate/regulate
>>>>>> against these dangers ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regulation means that wise legislators, with good hindsight
>>>>>> and without the pressure of the moment legistlate that eg.:-
>>>>>> no mortgage is valid for a  price > 75% of 'market'
>>>>>> which is reduced by X%, when the price of housing has
>>>>>> increased by > Y% relative to a commodities basket Z..etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if an influential spokes-person, Greenspan or whoever,
>>>>>> had publicly stated: " the conditions X, Y, Z are such that you
>>>>>> foolish arseholes are on route to a certain disaster..", would
>>>>>> not the market have immediately corrected ?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that 'regulations' are just writing down, that
>>>>>> which well educated persons already know.  The solution is
>>>>>> to spread the knowledge, by eg. openly mocking the promoters
>>>>>> of smoking and gambling  - like competent parents would do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fear that regulation only removes the responsibility, and
>>>>>> creates the 'Oh well it's not illegal, so it must be OK'
>>>>>> mentality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO one of the great new curses of modern societies is
>>>>>> popularism, herdism, political-correctness.  What would
>>>>>> have happened, if after 9/11, when WGB said "go out and
>>>>>> shop babes", a prominent voice said "no dudes, don't be
>>>>>> stupid, exercise discipline, we have already been living
>>>>>> beyond our means for too long  - which MUST have
>>>>>> consequences for the future"  ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, the anglo world needs to replace their childish
>>>>>> optimism with some germanic thrift and work ethic.
>>>>>> Regulating will just be like prohibition was, without a
>>>>>> mindset change promoted by education.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, this has a direct parallel with another important
>>>>>> aspect of society. The old idea that "the medical authorities
>>>>>> will take responsibility for your health, and that you can
>>>>>> just be a dumb passive recipient" are proven to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of truth in what you have said. I also noticed that
>>>>> some people like Rod Speed, by their responses, are obviously in
>>>>> panic mode, and rattled by your post.
>>>>
>>>> What a terminal fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing 'rattled' about having enough of a clue to realise that
>>>> its perfectly possible to regulate something like banking.
>>>>
>>>>> They are the ones who would like a big government watching, and
>>>>> controlling all of us.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that the
>>>> worst of the spivs and con men can cause considerable damage to
>>>> the financial system if the worst of their activitys are not
>>>> controlled.
>>
>>>> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ponzi
>>>> schemes do happen.
>>
>>> So, someone did a Ponzi scheme and you want to come down hard on
>>> all the people?
>>
>> Nope, I notice that what the worst of the spivs and con men in the
>> banking industry
>> just did came within an ace of imploding the entire world's financial
>> system, actually.
>>
>> If you're actually too stupid to have even noticed that Canada
>> and Australia worked out how to regulate their banks to avoid
>> ANY of their banks imploding spectacularly, your problem...
>>
>>> This is your approach:
>>
>> You're lying, as always.
>>
>>> "One of you ten people is the murderer, so in order to get him and
>>> have justice served, we shoot all of you".
>>
>> Never said a word about shooting anyone, fuckwit.
>>
>> I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose if the FACT that its
>> perfectly possible to regulate banks so the worst of the spivs and
>> con men cant bring the entire country's financial system undone.
>>
>>> Try to get a grip Mr. Rod Slow Speed.
>>
>> Let go of your dick, child, before you end up completely blind.

> Australia and Canada have a different type of banking system, with advantages and disadvantages.

What difference there are make an implosion of a bank more likely, fool.

> Over the recent business cycle, the resource economies generally had government surpluses and a positive balance of 
> trade.

Irrelevant to the sub prime fiasco, fool.

> The US had many other factors.

None relevant to the spectacular implosion of some of its banks, fool.

> One was the need to stimulate the economy by pumping up, all they had left, namely the housing and auto sales.

Irrelevant to what caused the sub prime fiasco, fool.

> This followed the downturns of the dot-com bubble and 9/11.

Which Australian and Canadian banks had to wear too, fool.

> In the good ole days, manufacturing could have been stimulated in a broader sense.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a fucking clue what the sub prime fiasco was about.