The deficit is going down

[whell]

Really?

And yet the heavily regulated free market is a source of innovation, diversity of products, efficiency ang high value for the consumer? Where is this the case?

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by whell

Really?

And yet the heavily regulated free market is a source of innovation, diversity of products, efficiency ang high value for the consumer? Where is this the case?

Define heavily regulated.

[whell]

Well, its your term. In the context you used it, I'm assuming it implies the opposite of free market, meaning all industries subject to regulation of inputs, output and means of production. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

[merrylander]

Thhere you go again! Seems to me we did OK from 1932 until 1978 while Glass Steagal was in effect. It sure as hell hit the fan after Gramm had his way.

[whell]

Your comments about Glass-Steagal are rather "rose colored". In fact, the repeal of Glass - Steagal gave the average Joe access to investment products and services in a convenient way, and probably prompted more private, individual investment and and individual interest in the financial marketplace. It empowered the individual like never before to invest for themselves, with the support of their relationship of their financial institution (bank / credit union).

You might complain about the rise of "big banks", but allowing banks big and small to build a revenue stream from selling securities trading services has helped many smaller banks and credit unions thrive as well.

Regulations have implications both seen and "un-seen". The un-seen impacts are often not noticed or publicized because the regulation's supporters don't focus on them. Volker is wrong about this, and I think reinstating Glass - Steagal is throwing the baby out with the bath water for many of the reasons noted above.

[Oerets]

With the results seen after the repeal I would think a blind man would be able to see it was due to lack of regulations. You can not just trust people to do the right thing. Not when you figure in greed.
The banking and financial industry as a whole can never be trusted, it has been proven over and over again.
Like a great man said once...“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill




Barney

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Your comments about Glass-Steagal are rather "rose colored". In fact, the repeal of Glass - Steagal gave the average Joe access to investment products and services in a convenient way, and probably prompted more private, individual investment and and individual interest in the financial marketplace. It empowered the individual like never before to invest for themselves, with the support of their relationship of their financial institution (bank / credit union).

You might complain about the rise of "big banks", but allowing banks big and small to build a revenue stream from selling securities trading services has helped many smaller banks and credit unions thrive as well.

Regulations have implications both seen and "un-seen". The un-seen impacts are often not noticed or publicized because the regulation's supporters don't focus on them. Volker is wrong about this, and I think reinstating Glass - Steagal is throwing the baby out with the bath water for many of the reasons noted above.

Well at least my glasses are only rose coloured, not totally dark as yours appear to be.

Look up Brooksley Born sometime and see what all these "new financial instruments" did for us. What Greenspan, Rubin and Summers did was unconscionable.

Also note that other than loosing trade with us because we put our economy in the toilet affecting their economy, Canada did not have any bank failures. Allowing our banks to trade with their investor's money and keep the profits was rediculous. What was it some economist called it -"When they make money they are capitalists, when they lose money they are soci@lists". they kept the profits and their investirs ate the losses. Can you say Goldman Sachs?

Whell I know you are not stupid but how you can accept that line of BS is beyond my comprehension.

Here, save you some trouble.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...f4g&refer=home

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, its your term. In the context you used it, I'm assuming it implies the opposite of free market, meaning all industries subject to regulation of inputs, output and means of production. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

Why does the opposite of non-regulated automatically mean heavily regulated to you?

[whell]

The "new financial instruments" packaged mortgages, not individual investor's funds. Glass - Steagal would have had zero impacts on any of those practices.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Why does the opposite of non-regulated automatically mean heavily regulated to you?

Is there a "right amount" of regulation that you'd be comfortable with? How is that decided? Who would place and enforce limits on regulations?