Quantcast
The (new) Official Political Compass Thread - All Users of VGC join in!

Forums - Politics Discussion - The (new) Official Political Compass Thread - All Users of VGC join in!

Badassbab said:

I thought the following were de-regulation i.e removing forced Federal and State regulations of the free market (and all three contributed to the financial crisis)

Community Re-investment Act- Made credit default swaps legal. This was not regulated at all and free market did not introduce a self regulatory body to oversee it.

Rigele-Neal Interstate Banking Act- Allowed banks to operate nationawide. Surely de-regulation of the financial sector?

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act- Allowed security, insurance and bank companies to operate in all financial sectors and not just their own specific areas. I can't see how this can be described as anything but de-regulation of the financial sector.

All of the above were initiated and passed because the Senators and others in power (like from the Treasury) who advocated such acts were generally speaking from the financial sector. Massive conflict of interest if you ask me. Between serving the good of your nation and it's majority inhabitants and the good of Wall Street. Key word again here is 'externalities'. I can't see how any of the above can be blamed on Keynesian economics. I mean it's like the last 6-7 administrations kept parts of the Keynesian economics that would make them and their buddies in the financial sector wealthier but ditched all the regulatory part thanks to the work of Friedman and co. Cronyism I call it.

If you look at the growth of the US during it's Keynesian years, it was much more egalitarian (though it rocketed post war and decades after that), wages were relatively speaking better and the average American had a better quality of life. For the last 30 years though, wages have stagnated (relatively speaking) and most of the wealth generated through deregulation and monetarist economics have gone to a small yet very powerful elite. The US economy pre 2008 Financial crash was more free market then it had ever been though some would argue not enough and not a 'real' free market as I'm sure a lot of mega corporations such as the big banks must of known they were too big to let fail and hence there would always be a golden parachute waiting to rescue them in a worst case scenario.

What I find unbelievable is Obama is hiring the very people who liberalised the financial sector to put the house back in order!

I think your pulling facts out of acts that offered de-regulation, without the other aspects of the laws which sought to incentivize bad market behaviour through Keynesian economics. All of the acts which had de-regulation also included new guidelines for these larger banks to follow.

For example, the CRA did make credit default swaps legal, but its primary goal was to ban redlining.

 

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]

Or in other words, if you want federal loan guarentees, you must follow their low-income (e.g. risky) loan regulations. Further CRA revisions did offer some de-regulations, but many came at the cost of adding more incentives for loaning to low-income citizens. For example, Riegle-Neal act also added new TILA regulations which were immediate (whereas the allowance for mergers was fully adopted at a latter date - 1997 - while the data may suggest that the new TILA regulations had a far more immediate effect). Additionally, during the same time period, you had Executive Order 12892 which expanded the reach and abilities of HUD, which again likely contributed to the housing explosion in 1994.

That is my whole argument: We have to look at the explosion of 1994 which created the boom, which led to all the major problems such as the subprime lending crisis, which with the assistance of credit default swaps resulted in the crash. Therefore, my view is that such deregulations as you mentioned did not cause the inflation which led to the problem, although they assisted in it.

I believe that the problem is that we've enabled a hybrid Keynesian-Friedman alliance in which markets were de-regulated, but risk was socialized in order to spur consumer demand, which has created a screwed up market with fewer risks than what are needed to keep the market honest. The question then becomes an argument of which came first: the Keynesian policies or the free-market policies.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network

I thought I'd be more right. I usually tell others that I'm moderate but I only do that to avoid confrontation. I guess I am kinda close to moderate. I guess being bisexual had some effect on my compass.



sapphi_snake said:
Viper1 said:
sapphi_snake said:

That first article looks like propaganda itself. It was even written by a right-winger from Poland. His argument regarding people giving more to the poor now is quite nonsensical. IT's almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, libertarianism advocates social help from the people.  Donating, giving time to volunteer, etc...   The concept is the poor get help more directly instead of through a middle channel (government) so that service is much more efficicent and personal.   It also provides a better economy in that there would be fewer poor to begin with and helps guide those that are poor but are capable of taking care of themselves to do so instead of relying on an entity to do that for you.

Other than t being more "personal", I really don't see any benefit (and honestly, this benefit is more to satisfy a selfish need of the people who volunteer, rather than help those in need). I don't see how private charaties in their current form do any of the underlined.

The problem you are seeing is government itself.  The private sector can never fully service the market if the government is offering much the same services.  In fact, the government corners the market in some facets making it extremely difficult for the private sector to offer services at all.  Not to forget the red tape involved.  The government gets in the way to the point that for many people they feel it's not worth the BS.

But the real kicker is that the government at times of emergency will actually ban non-government aide and support.  I recall during Hurricane Katrina that FEMA forced dozens of full sized 53' trucks to turn around and dozens already there to leave.  They were actualy from Wal-mart, full of food and supplies and were there long before FEMA showed up.  The Department of Homeland Security also prevented the American Red Cross from supplying food.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Viper1 said:
sapphi_snake said:

That first article looks like propaganda itself. It was even written by a right-winger from Poland. His argument regarding people giving more to the poor now is quite nonsensical. IT's almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, libertarianism advocates social help from the people.  Donating, giving time to volunteer, etc...   The concept is the poor get help more directly instead of through a middle channel (government) so that service is much more efficicent and personal.   It also provides a better economy in that there would be fewer poor to begin with and helps guide those that are poor but are capable of taking care of themselves to do so instead of relying on an entity to do that for you.

Other than t being more "personal", I really don't see any benefit (and honestly, this benefit is more to satisfy a selfish need of the people who volunteer, rather than help those in need). I don't see how private charaties in their current form do any of the underlined.

The problem you are seeing is government itself.  The private sector can never fully service the market if the government is offering much the same services.  In fact, the government corners the market in some facets making it extremely difficult for the private sector to offer services at all.  Not to forget the red tape involved.  The government gets in the way to the point that for many people they feel it's not worth the BS.

But the real kicker is that the government at times of emergency will actually ban non-government aide and support.  I recall during Hurricane Katrina that FEMA forced dozens of full sized 53' trucks to turn around and dozens already there to leave.  They were actualy from Wal-mart, full of food and supplies and were there long before FEMA showed up.  The Department of Homeland Security also prevented the American Red Cross from supplying food.

Why did the Government do this exactly?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

 

I believe that the problem is that we've enabled a hybrid Keynesian-Friedman alliance in which markets were de-regulated, but risk was socialized in order to spur consumer demand, which has created a screwed up market with fewer risks than what are needed to keep the market honest. The question then becomes an argument of which came first: the Keynesian policies or the free-market policies.


Definately agree with the last statement. The risk has fallen to the tax payers to enable the profits to be privatised and the already rich to get supremely wealthy and then use the little guy to bail them out should they require it.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake said:
Viper1 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Viper1 said:
sapphi_snake said:

That first article looks like propaganda itself. It was even written by a right-winger from Poland. His argument regarding people giving more to the poor now is quite nonsensical. IT's almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, libertarianism advocates social help from the people.  Donating, giving time to volunteer, etc...   The concept is the poor get help more directly instead of through a middle channel (government) so that service is much more efficicent and personal.   It also provides a better economy in that there would be fewer poor to begin with and helps guide those that are poor but are capable of taking care of themselves to do so instead of relying on an entity to do that for you.

Other than t being more "personal", I really don't see any benefit (and honestly, this benefit is more to satisfy a selfish need of the people who volunteer, rather than help those in need). I don't see how private charaties in their current form do any of the underlined.

The problem you are seeing is government itself.  The private sector can never fully service the market if the government is offering much the same services.  In fact, the government corners the market in some facets making it extremely difficult for the private sector to offer services at all.  Not to forget the red tape involved.  The government gets in the way to the point that for many people they feel it's not worth the BS.

But the real kicker is that the government at times of emergency will actually ban non-government aide and support.  I recall during Hurricane Katrina that FEMA forced dozens of full sized 53' trucks to turn around and dozens already there to leave.  They were actualy from Wal-mart, full of food and supplies and were there long before FEMA showed up.  The Department of Homeland Security also prevented the American Red Cross from supplying food.

Why did the Government do this exactly?

Bueracratic Red Tape... they turned awaya  TON of support.  Technically once Fema gets there, if you offer any help outside of them, your committing a crime I believe. 

From Wiki

 

"FEMA was accused of deliberately slowing things down, in an effort to ensure that all assistance and relief workers were coordinated properly. For example, Michael D. Brown, the head of FEMA, on August 29, urged all fire and emergency services departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities under mutual aid agreements and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.[27]

FEMA also interfered in the Astor Hotel's' plans to hire 10 buses to carry approximately 500 guests to higher ground. Federal officials commandeered the buses, and told the guests to join thousands of other evacuees at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.[28] In other instances of FEMA asserting its authority to only ultimately make things worse, FEMA officials turned away three Wal-Mart trailer trucks loaded with water, prevented the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and on Saturday they cut the Jefferson Parish emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA.[29] The Wal-Mart delivery had actually been turned away a week earlier, on Sunday, August 28, before the hurricane struck. A caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers was reported in New Orleans by September 1.[30] Additionally, more than 50 civilian aircraft responding to separate requests for evacuations from hospitals and other agencies swarmed to the area a day after Katrina hit, but FEMA blocked their efforts. Aircraft operators complained that FEMA waved off a number of evacuation attempts, saying the rescuers were not authorized. "Many planes and helicopters simply sat idle," said Thomas Judge, president of the Assn. of Air Medical Services.[31]"  "

That's not even all of it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency

As for Obama... after The BP spill they banned  a bunch off the oil skimming boats that were available and could of removed oil from the water because the boats didn't remove ENOUGH Oil.   It didn't matter that it would of removed more oil faster and lessened the enviromental harm.  Because they didn't remove enough oil they would techinically breaking the law because the water they would be putting back in the ocean would of broke the law because by putting the water back in.... they would be guilty of "polluting" according to EPA regulations.

Rescue boats too were a problem.

http://bpoilspillcomp.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/boats-created-to-help-gulf-wildlife-turned-away-find-out-why/



Kasz216 said:

Bueracratic Red Tape... they turned awaya  TON of support.  Technically once Fema gets there, if you offer any help outside of them, your committing a crime I believe. 

From Wiki

 

"FEMA was accused of deliberately slowing things down, in an effort to ensure that all assistance and relief workers were coordinated properly. For example, Michael D. Brown, the head of FEMA, on August 29, urged all fire and emergency services departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities under mutual aid agreements and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.[27]

FEMA also interfered in the Astor Hotel's' plans to hire 10 buses to carry approximately 500 guests to higher ground. Federal officials commandeered the buses, and told the guests to join thousands of other evacuees at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.[28] In other instances of FEMA asserting its authority to only ultimately make things worse, FEMA officials turned away three Wal-Mart trailer trucks loaded with water, prevented the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and on Saturday they cut the Jefferson Parish emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA.[29] The Wal-Mart delivery had actually been turned away a week earlier, on Sunday, August 28, before the hurricane struck. A caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers was reported in New Orleans by September 1.[30] Additionally, more than 50 civilian aircraft responding to separate requests for evacuations from hospitals and other agencies swarmed to the area a day after Katrina hit, but FEMA blocked their efforts. Aircraft operators complained that FEMA waved off a number of evacuation attempts, saying the rescuers were not authorized. "Many planes and helicopters simply sat idle," said Thomas Judge, president of the Assn. of Air Medical Services.[31]"  "

After The BP spill they banned  a bunch off the oil skimming boats that were available and could of removed oil from the water because the boats didn't remove ENOUGH Oil.   It didn't matter that it would of removed more oil faster and lessened the enviromental harm.  Because they didn't remove enough oil they would techinically breaking the law because the water they would be putting back in the ocean would of broke the law because by putting the water back in.... they would be guilty of "polluting" according to EPA regulations.

Rescue boats too were a problem.

http://bpoilspillcomp.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/boats-created-to-help-gulf-wildlife-turned-away-find-out-why/

O_O

The fact that the part I bolded, underlined and put in italics had to happen is grousome. Why would they turn down free help? I cannot believe something like this would seriously happen. There have to be some serious reformes done to this FEMA thing.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Bueracratic Red Tape... they turned awaya  TON of support.  Technically once Fema gets there, if you offer any help outside of them, your committing a crime I believe. 

From Wiki

 

"FEMA was accused of deliberately slowing things down, in an effort to ensure that all assistance and relief workers were coordinated properly. For example, Michael D. Brown, the head of FEMA, on August 29, urged all fire and emergency services departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities under mutual aid agreements and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.[27]

FEMA also interfered in the Astor Hotel's' plans to hire 10 buses to carry approximately 500 guests to higher ground. Federal officials commandeered the buses, and told the guests to join thousands of other evacuees at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.[28] In other instances of FEMA asserting its authority to only ultimately make things worse, FEMA officials turned away three Wal-Mart trailer trucks loaded with water, prevented the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and on Saturday they cut the Jefferson Parish emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA.[29] The Wal-Mart delivery had actually been turned away a week earlier, on Sunday, August 28, before the hurricane struck. A caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers was reported in New Orleans by September 1.[30] Additionally, more than 50 civilian aircraft responding to separate requests for evacuations from hospitals and other agencies swarmed to the area a day after Katrina hit, but FEMA blocked their efforts. Aircraft operators complained that FEMA waved off a number of evacuation attempts, saying the rescuers were not authorized. "Many planes and helicopters simply sat idle," said Thomas Judge, president of the Assn. of Air Medical Services.[31]"  "

After The BP spill they banned  a bunch off the oil skimming boats that were available and could of removed oil from the water because the boats didn't remove ENOUGH Oil.   It didn't matter that it would of removed more oil faster and lessened the enviromental harm.  Because they didn't remove enough oil they would techinically breaking the law because the water they would be putting back in the ocean would of broke the law because by putting the water back in.... they would be guilty of "polluting" according to EPA regulations.

Rescue boats too were a problem.

http://bpoilspillcomp.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/boats-created-to-help-gulf-wildlife-turned-away-find-out-why/

O_O

The fact that the part I bolded, underlined and put in italics had to happen is grousome. Why would they turn down free help? I cannot believe something like this would seriously happen. There have to be some serious reformes done to this FEMA thing.

You think that's bad?  Try this line....

"A September 16, 2005 CNN article about Chalmette Medical Center stated, "Doctors eager to help sick and injured evacuees were handed mops by federal officials who expressed concern about legal liability... And so they mopped, while people died around them."[35]"

Why did they turn down free help?

Because when Fema takes over... there is no room for private help anymore... that's how government works.

All aid must go through Fema first... and if Fema either doesn't want it, or can't process all the help, or it doesn't fit the stupidly narrow and percise government guidelines... it gets delayed, or turned away.




Kasz216 said:

You think that's bad?  Try this line....

"A September 16, 2005 CNN article about Chalmette Medical Center stated, "Doctors eager to help sick and injured evacuees were handed mops by federal officials who expressed concern about legal liability... And so they mopped, while people died around them."[35]"

Why did they turn down free help?

Because when Fema takes over... there is no room for private help anymore.  All aid must go through Fema first... and if Fema either doesn't want it, or can't process all the help, it gets delayed, or turned away.


As I said, why don't you guys try to push for some reformes?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

You think that's bad?  Try this line....

"A September 16, 2005 CNN article about Chalmette Medical Center stated, "Doctors eager to help sick and injured evacuees were handed mops by federal officials who expressed concern about legal liability... And so they mopped, while people died around them."[35]"

Why did they turn down free help?

Because when Fema takes over... there is no room for private help anymore.  All aid must go through Fema first... and if Fema either doesn't want it, or can't process all the help, it gets delayed, or turned away.


As I said, why don't you guys try to push for some reformes?


There really isn't any way to reform it.  I don't think the US is particularly unique in this.

Could push for dergulation I guess.