Quake3World

FFS...the reason why all the shit that's been going on lately is precisely because the GOP ignored or rolled back a ton of the regulations created in the "New Deal".

Regulation didn't cause this mess, 30 years of slowly removing it did.

And the Fed manipulating the interest rates to artificial lows.

yeah which they did so banks had a wider spread to play with and to get bush reelected..time to drop the bombs?...

Mikko_Sandt wrote:At least there's political diversity in America. In Finland and Europe every notable party is a social democratic party. There's no real political discussion. It's all about fine-tuning the welfare state. America is dynamic, the engine of the world while Europe merely tags along. If everyone thinks the same (Democratic candidates are supported by 90% of the population) how can there be dynamism? If you cannot create you need to adopt what others create and this is how the relationship between the US and Europe works. Naive Europeans just don't get it because they have been taught by state controlled schools and media not to think.

lol

No shit lol.

Mikko...the US isn't the "freeist" market on the planet. Some have even fewer regulations.

Yeah... it's merely a lol because i can't be fucking bothered to respond in seriousness, i wouldn't know where to start.
There's not a single true thing in that paragraph, it's all twisted lies and horrible madness. Only a freak of nature could think of such ridiculous things.

Hey Mikko, you still live with your parents, don't you?

I bet his parents are rich, too..

This isn't necessary.

Come now MQ - with the usual standards of abuse at this place - nobody is being too hard on him.

Massive Quasars wrote:This isn't necessary.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:If you cannot create you need to adopt what others create and this is how the relationship between the US and Europe works. Naive Europeans just don't get it because they have been taught by state controlled schools and media not to think.

o rly?

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

R00k wrote:We are forced to pay for something we don't want in exactly the same way with our privately-owned cable packages...You have to buy packages.

That is not the same. FoxNews needs viewers to stay alive. Therefore it is subject to market mechanisms. If people don't like it, they don't watch it and it is then forced to make adjustments or collapse. You're paying by watching commercials. State controller broadcasting companies don't need to care much about ratings. Besides, if a state controller broadcaster needs viewers it can monopolize them by banning others from broadcasting. There are obviously practical reasons why you need to buy packages but at least you don't need to pay for owning a tv and at least you get to choose your packages.

I pay nearly $600 a year for my viewing pleasure. Half of that is compulsory and the other half goes to a five-channel package I purchase every year. I mind paying the first half since I don't even watch the state channels (except for Law & Order, which I could buy on dvd for $30 a season). $300 a year for three channels that I don't want is unreasonable. I don't mind paying the other half even though I really need only one (NHL games) of the five channels. You see, at least I chose to pay for the package. The way I understand it, the average American gets dozens of channels practically for free. And if you really want quality you can pay for that.

At least there's political diversity in America. In Finland and Europe every notable party is a social democratic party. There's no real political discussion. It's all about fine-tuning the welfare state. America is dynamic, the engine of the world while Europe merely tags along. If everyone thinks the same (Democratic candidates are supported by 90% of the population) how can there be dynamism? If you cannot create you need to adopt what others create and this is how the relationship between the US and Europe works. Naive Europeans just don't get it because they have been taught by state controlled schools and media not to think.

So you don't live in the US? There are (I think) three broadcast channels, a channel with only local programming, and two additional channels. If you buy a television and turn it on (and you have an antenna), then you automatically pick up these channels. You don't pay to access them.
The taxpayers paid to create this broadcast infrastructure because it's essential to keep taxpayers informed. That's the whole point. Besides which, if we had just waited for private companies to come in and create this, then it would only exist in densely populated areas - markets worth selling to. Not only that, but there would be no local broadcasting (which, thanks to deregulation, the companies are working on eliminating now).

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

R00k wrote:The rates are only one part of what caused our current problems.

This is what I said.

No, this is what you said:

Mikko_Sandt wrote:The current crisis arose because of government intervention, because the Fed kept interest rates low (which increases consumption at the expense of saving) and because Fannie & Freddie were allowed to get involved in the mortgage market in the first place.

You were blaming it on rates being low and the fact that "Fannie & Freddie were allowed to get involved in the mortgage market in the first place." Fannie and Freddie have worked fine for a long, long time. They help the real estate market quite a bit by buying/backing prime loans. Again, it was a relaxation of the rules that allowed them to buy sub-prime packages.

So, if you must know, in reference to your remark that's coming up in the next quote: yes, there will always be people who try to get around regulations. And the most effective way they have found to do it is by convincing people that regulations are bad, and trying to get them removed or weakened, which is exactly what you are supporting here. Except you aren't calling for just weaker regulations - you want a Wild West style of market where anything goes, and no one is accountable for anything except their bottom line.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

R00k wrote:Another very important part was legislation passed in '99 that removed a key regulation, preventing banks from operating in the private investment market.

Regulation is needed only if you have a state-backed system, like you have now, but, as I said before, having a state-backed system is the problem and needs to be fixed.

You offer no evidence or compelling reason to believe this. Whereas events like Enron and the current crisis make a very strong argument against removing regulations.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:More regulation probably won't solve anything since companies have been able to bypass restrictions and even take advantage of them. As I have said, bureaucrats usually have no idea how companies work and evolve.

That's your reason that regulation won't help? Because people can find ways around them? Do you also suggest we have no laws, since people find ways to get around those?
Also, see above comment.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

R00k wrote:banks were able to buy and sell these securities bundles that included tons of bad loans. When the loans went bust, they lost a ton of money, and they went bust too.

I know this but the problem still is the fact that the government encouraged this. Hell, the government even created institutions that increased unhealthy activity in the financial sector so that some poor people could afford homes. Subprime lending was encouraged by the government. You're focusing purely on the symptons caused by government interference which I think makes little sense.

You're confusing sub-prime loans with other government assistance. The removal of regulations by free-market ideologue politicians to prevent this activity was the full extent to which the government encouraged banks to issue sub-prime loans. The banks' desire for more profits took care of the rest.
As you mentioned, Greenspan's push to keep rates low didn't help either, but that in iteslf could not have caused the sub-prime situation to happen, without the removal of regulations that discouraged it.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

There was no way for the customers to know that their bank had purchased bad investments.

That is because there were no incentives for them to care about it due to deposit insurance. Your money is safe anyway so why care how risky your bank is? Hell, you may even be rewarded if the risky investments taken by your bank turn out to be productive!

What you are essentially saying is that the onus is on the customer of the bank to not put his money in a "risky" bank - but at the same time, also saying that no bank should be forced to disclose how it operates, to anyone. This is fallacious logic.

If deposit insurance didn't exist private individuals would be a lot more careful with their savings. This would encourage banks to operate transparently. Risk-averse individuals would choose safe banks whileas risk-seeking individuals would choose banks that offer attractive risk premiums.

So you believe the banking system would be better for everyone if deposit insurance had never been introduced? Surely you don't mean that.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

If you think there is nothing wrong with corporations owning every park, pond, tree, lake in the country, including the Grand Canyon, then we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything.

Private individuals may own resources as well, of course.

How does this make a material difference? If everything went up for sale to the highest bidder, do you think regular people would have any chance of owning any of it?

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

Again: if the question of whether there is anything wrong with pollution comes down to a simple economic cost/benefit analysis to you, we aren't going to agree on much.

Arbitrarily valuing natural resources makes no sense.

So it makes no sense to want to preserve natural areas in a way that everyone can access and enjoy them? Do you think having to pay admission to (currently) public parks would be an improvement? Do you think they would even remain preserved under a privatized system? Or do you not care whether they would or not?

he is just trollling u rook...get a life moran...

trolling or not.... he's a genuine moron

scared?

boy, i was inebriated last night.

lol

You pretty much have to be to discuss the mess that is modern economics.

R00k wrote:boy, i was inebriated last night.

Haha
Was wondering why you went through all that trouble..

Surprisingly I don't feel that bad today.

Ryoki wrote:Yeah... it's merely a lol because i can't be fucking bothered to respond in seriousness, i wouldn't know where to start.
There's not a single true thing in that paragraph, it's all twisted lies and horrible madness. Only a freak of nature could think of such ridiculous things.

Oh, that's a convincing argument. But I can see how this pathetic collective bickering is everything some people on the left half of the Gaussian curve can come up with.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Mikko...the US isn't the "freeist" market on the planet. Some have even fewer regulations.

And I stated otherwise where?

You didn't really.

You mentioned America and - based your your support for free market ideals - seemed to be saying America was where it's at.

BTW...what do you make of this current mess? Has any of it made you question the long-term viability of wild west free markets?

jesus christ mikko, you're in fucking lala land.

allowing companies to own everything and operate without regulations is the most stupid fucking thing i've heard for a long time. it's never worked in the past, and will never work in the future.

let me guess, you're in your early twenties, have worked for maybe a year or two, and think nobody else works as hard as you, right?

he prolly got a degree in economics

Mikko_Sandt wrote: Oh, that's a convincing argument.

Why would you expect people to respond with seriousness and genuine arguments to such uninformed nonsense? It's clear to me that you are either a troll or a moron.

You've both dished and served, spare the moral authority.

In case someone missed a link provided earlier by Massive Quasars, here it is again (Scientists find proof that privatising fishing stocks can avert a disaster): http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... d=12253181

Two examples from Public Finance: Kenya banned all hunting in 1977, and its elephant population fell from 167 000 to 16 000 by 1989. In contrast, in 1982, Zimbabwe granted landowners property rights over wildlife; between that time and 1995 its elephant population gre from 40 000 to 68 000.

"in England and Scotland, private ownership of the rivers and waterways has successfully prevented overfishing and controlled water pollution for 800 years. The owners simply charge others for the right to fish in their section of the river. Consequently, the owners have an ecomomic incentive to maintain the fish population and keep the waterway clean."

R00k wrote:The taxpayers paid to create this broadcast infrastructure because it's essential to keep taxpayers informed. That's the whole point.

But that is not how it works. If broadcasting is left to the government you end up having an ignorant public which is the case in Europe and, in a much more extreme form, North Korea.

The bottom line: Individuals are responsible for keeping themselves informed. They cannot demand to know anything because that'd imply someone else should be forced to provide information.

Besides which, if we had just waited for private companies to come in and create this, then it would only exist in densely populated areas - markets worth selling to. Not only that, but there would be no local broadcasting (which, thanks to deregulation, the companies are working on eliminating now).

I don't see how this is a problem. Obviously it's harder for people living in remote regions to access services than people living in densely populated regions. If you want services near you you can always move. It wouldn't make sense to subsidize living in the middle of nowhere. Or would you say it's your obligation to offer your services against your will to people living in the middle of nowhere?

No, this is what you said:

I mentioned rates being just one cause of the crisis and you quoted the very part where I said exactly that.

Fannie and Freddie have worked fine for a long, long time. They help the real estate market quite a bit by buying/backing prime loans.

So? If a government sets up a new GSE that buys car loans that helps the car industry. This is not a good reason for government involvement. If markets fail to provide "enough" loans there's a reason for that. In this case markets "failed" to provide loans to people with poor credit ratings and this is a good thing. The government then stepped in to "fix" the problem.

Again, it was a relaxation of the rules that allowed them to buy sub-prime packages.

And it was implicit government guarantees that sent them on this path.

events like Enron and the current crisis make a very strong argument against removing regulations.

How is Enron a strong argument against deregulation? It was a minor collapse.

You're completely forgetting how deregulation has helped financial markets across the world to spread wealth to hundreds of millions. Deregulation has been a necessity. For example, financial markets were pretty much fully deregulated in Finland in the eighties which led to a banking crisis and a depression (although it wouldn't have happened without government messing with exchange rates and the Soviet Union, an important trading partner, collapsing) which cost a lot more to us than the current crisis is estimated to cost to Americans. Despite all the trouble it was necessary to update the financial system to match the needs of a hi-tech, globalized world. The thing is that financial markets should never have been regulated in the first place but governments have traditionally insisted on controlling the financial system in order to wage wars and other nonsense.

That's your reason that regulation won't help? Because people can find ways around them? Do you also suggest we have no laws, since people find ways to get around those?

Laws are there to prevent certain individuals from doing what they're not supposed to do. Financial market regulation is there to prevent companies from doing what they're supposed to do.

You're confusing sub-prime loans with other government assistance. The removal of regulations by free-market ideologue politicians to prevent this activity was the full extent to which the government encouraged banks to issue sub-prime loans. The banks' desire for more profits took care of the rest.

Then why are we witnessing this in the financial sector and not everywhere else? Why aren't supermarkets constantly taking stupid risks and going down in huge waves?

So you believe the banking system would be better for everyone if deposit insurance had never been introduced? Surely you don't mean that.

Deposit insurance is a part of the problem. It alone should not be removed since the current system encourages risky behavior but it should be removed along with other government backups that create incentives to go reckless. How else would you encourage consumers to be more careful with their money? Consumers are just as greed as fat cats; if a bank offers them nice rates and you have a government backing your deposits you end up giving your money to the riskiest bank.

How does this make a material difference? If everything went up for sale to the highest bidder, do you think regular people would have any chance of owning any of it?

It depends on how interested companies are. Also, individuals are free to unite and buy land for conservation, as is happening all the time.

Do you think having to pay admission to (currently) public parks would be an improvement?

If they're not properly funded then yes. Since maintaining public services is not free I see no reason why those who use the service shouldn't also be the ones paying the biggest bill. There is, of course, no one-size-fits-all solution so it'd make less sense to charge those visiting, say, Central Park than those visiting some other location.

Do you think they would even remain preserved under a privatized system?

Some would, some wouldn't, it depends on what people are willing to pay.