Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
I keep telling you people that you want government OUT of business affairs, not intruding upon them with regulatory bs. Why? Because the end result is always crony capitalism. It becomes a rush to pay the best lobbyists to create loopholes in whatever legislation is on the table. This isn't a flaw in capitalism as some will point out. It's a flaw in all governments, no matter what economic theory drives them. It's called corruption.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st … lout/print

Rather long article, this is just a snippet:
The most notable of these came in the proposal to regulate derivatives like credit-default swaps. Even Gary Gensler, the former Goldmanite whom Obama put in charge of commodities regulation, was pushing to make these normally obscure investments more transparent, enabling regulators and investors to identify speculative bubbles sooner. But in August, a month after Gensler came out in favor of reform, Geithner slapped him down by issuing a 115-page paper called "Improvements to Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets" that called for a series of exemptions for "end users" — i.e., almost all of the clients who buy derivatives from banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Even more stunning, Frank's bill included a blanket exception to the rules for currency swaps traded on foreign exchanges — the very instruments that had triggered the Long-Term Capital Management meltdown in the late 1990s.

Given that derivatives were at the heart of the financial meltdown last year, the decision to gut derivatives reform sent some legislators howling with disgust. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, who estimates that as much as 90 percent of all derivatives could remain unregulated under the new rules, went so far as to say the new laws would make things worse. "Current law with its loopholes might actually be better than these loopholes," she said.

An even bigger loophole could do far worse damage to the economy. Under the original bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were granted the power to ban any credit swaps deemed to be "detrimental to the stability of a financial market or of participants in a financial market." By the time Frank's committee was done with the bill, however, the SEC and the CFTC were left with no authority to do anything about abusive derivatives other than to send a report to Congress. The move, in effect, would leave the kind of credit-default swaps that brought down AIG largely unregulated.

Why would leading congressional Democrats, working closely with the Obama administration, agree to leave one of the riskiest of all financial instruments unregulated, even before the issue could be debated by the House? "There was concern that a broad grant to ban abusive swaps would be unsettling," Frank explained.

Unsettling to whom? Certainly not to you and me — but then again, actual people are not really part of the calculus when it comes to finance reform. According to those close to the markup process, Frank's committee inserted loopholes under pressure from "constituents" — by which they mean anyone "who can afford a lobbyist," says Michael Greenberger, the former head of trading at the CFTC under Clinton.

This pattern would repeat itself over and over again throughout the fall. Take the centerpiece of Obama's reform proposal: the much-ballyhooed creation of a Consumer Finance Protection Agency to protect the little guy from abusive bank practices. Like the derivatives bill, the debate over the CFPA ended up being dominated by horse-trading for loopholes. In the end, Frank not only agreed to exempt some 8,000 of the nation's 8,200 banks from oversight by the castrated-in-advance agency, leaving most consumers unprotected, he allowed the committee to pass the exemption by voice vote, meaning that congressmen could side with the banks without actually attaching their name to their "Aye."

To win the support of conservative Democrats, Frank also backed down on another issue that seemed like a slam-dunk: a requirement that all banks offer so-called "plain vanilla" products, such as no-frills mortgages, to give consumers an alternative to deceptive, "fully loaded" deals like adjustable-rate loans. Frank's last-minute reversal — made in consultation with Geithner — was such a transparent giveaway to the banks that even an economics writer for Reuters, hardly a far-left source, called it "the beginning of the end of meaningful regulatory reform."

But the real kicker came when Frank's committee took up what is known as "resolution authority" — government-speak for "Who the hell is in charge the next time somebody at AIG or Lehman Brothers decides to vaporize the economy?" What the committee initially introduced bore a striking resemblance to a proposal written by Geithner earlier in the summer. A masterpiece of legislative chicanery, the measure would have given the White House permanent and unlimited authority to execute future bailouts of megaconglomerates like Citigroup and Bear Stearns.

Democrats pushed the move as politically uncontroversial, claiming that the bill will force Wall Street to pay for any future bailouts and "doesn't use taxpayer money." In reality, that was complete bullshit. The way the bill was written, the FDIC would basically borrow money from the Treasury — i.e., from ordinary taxpayers — to bail out any of the nation's two dozen or so largest financial companies that the president deems in need of government assistance. After the bailout is executed, the president would then levy a tax on financial firms with assets of more than $10 billion to repay the Treasury within 60 months — unless, that is, the president decides he doesn't want to! "They can wait indefinitely to repay," says Rep. Brad Sherman of California, who dubbed the early version of the bill "TARP on steroids."

The new bailout authority also mandated that future bailouts would not include an exchange of equity "in any form" — meaning that taxpayers would get nothing in return for underwriting Wall Street's mistakes. Even more outrageous, it specifically prohibited Congress from rejecting tax giveaways to Wall Street, as it did last year, by removing all congressional oversight of future bailouts. In fact, the resolution authority proposed by Frank was such a slurpingly obvious blow job of Wall Street that it provoked a revolt among his own committee members, with junior Democrats waging a spirited fight that restored congressional oversight to future bailouts, requires equity for taxpayer money and caps assistance to troubled firms at $150 billion. Another amendment to force companies with more than $50 billion in assets to pay into a rainy-day fund for bailouts passed by a resounding vote of 52 to 17 — with the "Nays" all coming from Frank and other senior Democrats loyal to the administration.

Even as amended, however, resolution authority still has the potential to be truly revolutionary legislation. The Senate version still grants the president unlimited power over equity-free bailouts, and the amended House bill still institutionalizes a system of taxpayer support for the 20 to 25 biggest banks in the country. It would essentially grant economic immortality to those top few megafirms, who will continually gobble up greater and greater slices of market share as money becomes cheaper and cheaper for them to borrow (after all, who wouldn't lend to a company permanently backstopped by the federal government?). It would also formalize the government's role in the global economy and turn the presidential-appointment process into an important part of every big firm's business strategy. "If this passes, the very first thing these companies are going to do in the future is ask themselves, 'How do we make sure that one of our executives becomes assistant Treasury secretary?'" says Sherman.
Frankly (no pun intended), it makes me sick.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
My response to the author:
A lot of people have been screaming for a long time about removing the government from business. You basically spit on those that believe in laissez-faire economic theory and then you whine that the alternative, government regulations and intrusion, didn’t work how you expected. Government is corrupt by nature. It’s what it does. Why would you idealistically believe that this would change when Obama was elected?

I know her name is anathema to those of the left persuasion, but Rand got this one right. She described quite well the ‘looters’ that use their pull in government to create an unfair marketplace for their competitors. Instead of driving the competition out fairly, they just write the laws to do it for them.

Many people who have only a cursory understanding of how capitalism works claim that it is a bad system of economics because it eventually leads to monopolies being formed. This is false. The only way that a monopoly could form and sustain itself would be via government intervention and the writing of laws to protect it from competition.

To sum this all up… you got what you wished for when you ran to the government to ‘fix’ Wall Street. What you should’ve done was tell government to get it’s filthy paws off business so that the bailouts and handouts and loophole ridden laws cease to exist. That doesn’t happen when you entangle government even more with business and make it enforce laughable regulations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
Before you can regulate the country you need a well regulated govt, something the US especially does not have.
When the man who can generate the most campaign funds basically buys the election thats what you get.

Many people who have only a cursory understanding of how capitalism works claim that it is a bad system of economics because it eventually leads to monopolies being formed. This is false.
No, its often true.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-11 16:34:45)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

Dilbert_X wrote:

Before you can regulate the country you need a well regulated govt, something the US especially does not have.
When the man who can generate the most campaign funds basically buys the election thats what you get.

Many people who have only a cursory understanding of how capitalism works claim that it is a bad system of economics because it eventually leads to monopolies being formed. This is false.
No, its often true.
Standard Oil.

As dilber says, well regulated gov = well regulated systems. Laize faiire in theory works, but in real life it only creates monopolies or oligopolies.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Before you can regulate the country you need a well regulated govt, something the US especially does not have.
When the man who can generate the most campaign funds basically buys the election thats what you get.

Many people who have only a cursory understanding of how capitalism works claim that it is a bad system of economics because it eventually leads to monopolies being formed. This is false.
No, its often true.
Standard Oil.

As dilber says, well regulated gov = well regulated systems. Laize faiire in theory works, but in real life it only creates monopolies or oligopolies.
Really? The latest bank fiasco puts the lie to that. Those banks, which control half of all home loans and 95% of derivative trading would have all failed last year. It wouldn't have been permanent. Other, smaller banks would've taken up the slack eventually. This didn't happen solely because of governmental interference. The government is supporting this cartel of 5-6 large banks. It would not exist otherwise.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Before you can regulate the country you need a well regulated govt, something the US especially does not have.
When the man who can generate the most campaign funds basically buys the election thats what you get.


No, its often true.
Standard Oil.

As dilber says, well regulated gov = well regulated systems. Laize faiire in theory works, but in real life it only creates monopolies or oligopolies.
Really? The latest bank fiasco puts the lie to that. Those banks, which control half of all home loans and 95% of derivative trading would have all failed last year. It wouldn't have been permanent. Other, smaller banks would've taken up the slack eventually. This didn't happen solely because of governmental interference. The government is supporting this cartel of 5-6 large banks. It would not exist otherwise.
Problem is that most congressmen, senators and presidential advisors used to work for large banking institutions and other companies... Heck even the president of the world bank used to work for Enron. Its not regulation that is causing the problem, it is corruption in the government itself.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6603|949

Yes yes, we should just let the invisible market hand of the ghost of Adam Smith guide us to enlightened capitalism
13rin
Member
+977|6450

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yes yes, we should just let the invisible market hand of the ghost of Adam Smith guide us to enlightened capitalism
Rather his ghost do it as opposed to the big o.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Really? The latest bank fiasco puts the lie to that. Those banks, which control half of all home loans and 95% of derivative trading would have all failed last year. It wouldn't have been permanent. Other, smaller banks would've taken up the slack eventually. This didn't happen solely because of governmental interference. The government is supporting this cartel of 5-6 large banks. It would not exist otherwise.
If that had happened millions of people would have lost their life savings in the process and tens of thousands would have been out of work - all down to slack regulation.

And more likely one or two organisations would have bought up the wreckage, creating an instant monopoly or duopoly.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6692|Sydney, Australia

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Really? The latest bank fiasco puts the lie to that. Those banks, which control half of all home loans and 95% of derivative trading would have all failed last year. It wouldn't have been permanent. Other, smaller banks would've taken up the slack eventually. This didn't happen solely because of governmental interference. The government is supporting this cartel of 5-6 large banks. It would not exist otherwise.
If that had happened millions of people would have lost their life savings in the process and tens of thousands would have been out of work - all down to slack regulation.

And more likely one or two organisations would have bought up the wreckage, creating an instant monopoly or duopoly.
This.

Sure, it might have corrected itself.

But at what cost?


The banking and financial sector SHOULD be heavily regulated, as they are of critical importance to day to day life and thus the proper running of society.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6781|Nårvei

Some government business is highly necessary ...

Might be worse getting a well regulated market in the US to work properly seeing as the populace has lost it's trust in the government and the government in it's people ... corruption is just one obstacle ...

Without government interference and regulation we would be back in Britain in the 1800's and the huge bank scandals ruining millions of people over and over again leaving a few filthy rich and the average families in utter economic chaos ...

An unregulated market is just as bad as an overly regulated market ...

It's really sad to see how the chase for riches have taken so many souls, extreme materialism and earning money on other peoples misfortune is despicable and needs to be regulated ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

mcminty wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Really? The latest bank fiasco puts the lie to that. Those banks, which control half of all home loans and 95% of derivative trading would have all failed last year. It wouldn't have been permanent. Other, smaller banks would've taken up the slack eventually. This didn't happen solely because of governmental interference. The government is supporting this cartel of 5-6 large banks. It would not exist otherwise.
If that had happened millions of people would have lost their life savings in the process and tens of thousands would have been out of work - all down to slack regulation.

And more likely one or two organisations would have bought up the wreckage, creating an instant monopoly or duopoly.
This.

Sure, it might have corrected itself.

But at what cost?


The banking and financial sector SHOULD be heavily regulated, as they are of critical importance to day to day life and thus the proper running of society.
After watching the credit crisis video... A couple of people can fuck over lives of millions, if not billions.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
IIRC Warren Buffet has picked up the choice bits of Enron.
So now one man, with no shareholders, controls the gas supply in much of the US.
Deregulation FTW.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6382|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

An unregulated market is just as bad as an overly regulated market ...
This. The challenge is finding the sweet spot instead of riding the political pendulum...which is what is happening now (pendulum).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6781|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

An unregulated market is just as bad as an overly regulated market ...
This. The challenge is finding the sweet spot instead of riding the political pendulum...which is what is happening now (pendulum).
Politicians all across the world are overreacting in sync with the crisis aka the pendulum you refer to ... I would like to have seen a committee with both politicians and a variety of private investors coming together and lock them in a room not letting them out before they find the answer ... and give them nothing but money to eat while they're at it
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
The problem with regulation is that you are essentially setting up a system of morals for businessmen. As with any system of moral code it puts those who either wish to follow them, or who are hampered by them, at a disadvantage against those who do not follow the same code. In this case it would put the western world at a serious disadvantage against an unscrupulous economic opponent like the Chinese. If your moral code says that in order to conduct a fair fight you must tie one hand behind your back while engaging in a sword duel, I'll be showing up with a shield and sword combo and you won't have a chance.

The only regulation needed is prosecution and harsh sentencing for fraud and theft.

Edit - And Dilbert, bank accounts are insured by a fund set up by the federal government (which the banks themselves provide the funds for) for up to a million dollars so even if a bank fails people don't lose their life savings.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-15 06:44:33)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6781|Nårvei

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem with regulation is that you are essentially setting up a system of morals for businessmen. As with any system of moral code it puts those who either wish to follow them, or who are hampered by them, at a disadvantage against those who do not follow the same code. In this case it would put the western world at a serious disadvantage against an unscrupulous economic opponent like the Chinese. If your moral code says that in order to conduct a fair fight you must tie one hand behind your back while engaging in a sword duel, I'll be showing up with a shield and sword combo and you won't have a chance.

The only regulation needed is prosecution and harsh sentencing for fraud and theft.
And how about fraud and theft that are "allowed" within an unregulated market?

And moral and businessmen in the same sentence ... please give me a break, only moral financial workers have is the endless quest for money ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem with regulation is that you are essentially setting up a system of morals for businessmen. As with any system of moral code it puts those who either wish to follow them, or who are hampered by them, at a disadvantage against those who do not follow the same code. In this case it would put the western world at a serious disadvantage against an unscrupulous economic opponent like the Chinese. If your moral code says that in order to conduct a fair fight you must tie one hand behind your back while engaging in a sword duel, I'll be showing up with a shield and sword combo and you won't have a chance.

The only regulation needed is prosecution and harsh sentencing for fraud and theft.
And how about fraud and theft that are "allowed" within an unregulated market?

And moral and businessmen in the same sentence ... please give me a break, only moral financial workers have is the endless quest for money ...
Morals, ethics, same thing. You want to impose a standard of ethics upon an industry, you better make sure that it is a worldwide standard or your economy will soon be owned by another nation with less scruples.

Please show examples of fraud and theft that are "allowed" in an unregulated market.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem with regulation is that you are essentially setting up a system of morals for businessmen. As with any system of moral code it puts those who either wish to follow them, or who are hampered by them, at a disadvantage against those who do not follow the same code. In this case it would put the western world at a serious disadvantage against an unscrupulous economic opponent like the Chinese. If your moral code says that in order to conduct a fair fight you must tie one hand behind your back while engaging in a sword duel, I'll be showing up with a shield and sword combo and you won't have a chance.

The only regulation needed is prosecution and harsh sentencing for fraud and theft.
And how about fraud and theft that are "allowed" within an unregulated market?

And moral and businessmen in the same sentence ... please give me a break, only moral financial workers have is the endless quest for money ...
Morals, ethics, same thing. You want to impose a standard of ethics upon an industry, you better make sure that it is a worldwide standard or your economy will soon be owned by another nation with less scruples.

Please show examples of fraud and theft that are "allowed" in an unregulated market.
One way to fuck over the Chinese is to stop trading with them. Can't sell a product without customers.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6781|Nårvei

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:


And how about fraud and theft that are "allowed" within an unregulated market?

And moral and businessmen in the same sentence ... please give me a break, only moral financial workers have is the endless quest for money ...
Morals, ethics, same thing. You want to impose a standard of ethics upon an industry, you better make sure that it is a worldwide standard or your economy will soon be owned by another nation with less scruples.

Please show examples of fraud and theft that are "allowed" in an unregulated market.
One way to fuck over the Chinese is to stop trading with them. Can't sell a product without customers.
The Chinese can bankrupt the US at any given time so I'd be a tad careful with that ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6781|Nårvei

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem with regulation is that you are essentially setting up a system of morals for businessmen. As with any system of moral code it puts those who either wish to follow them, or who are hampered by them, at a disadvantage against those who do not follow the same code. In this case it would put the western world at a serious disadvantage against an unscrupulous economic opponent like the Chinese. If your moral code says that in order to conduct a fair fight you must tie one hand behind your back while engaging in a sword duel, I'll be showing up with a shield and sword combo and you won't have a chance.

The only regulation needed is prosecution and harsh sentencing for fraud and theft.
And how about fraud and theft that are "allowed" within an unregulated market?

And moral and businessmen in the same sentence ... please give me a break, only moral financial workers have is the endless quest for money ...
Morals, ethics, same thing. You want to impose a standard of ethics upon an industry, you better make sure that it is a worldwide standard or your economy will soon be owned by another nation with less scruples.

Please show examples of fraud and theft that are "allowed" in an unregulated market.
Aaaaand how many have been convicted for unleashing the last financial crisis?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Morals, ethics, same thing. You want to impose a standard of ethics upon an industry, you better make sure that it is a worldwide standard or your economy will soon be owned by another nation with less scruples.

Please show examples of fraud and theft that are "allowed" in an unregulated market.
One way to fuck over the Chinese is to stop trading with them. Can't sell a product without customers.
The Chinese can bankrupt the US at any given time so I'd be a tad careful with that ...
System works both ways.

America needs to be a lot more economically nationalist like Australia. Shit, the gov has huge ads saying "BUY AUSTRALIAN MADE OR WERE FUCKED COZ OUR KIDS WONT HAVE JOBS" ads.

If the US just started pouring its money in properly they could rebuy all the Chinese debt. And fuck, China needs Iraqi oil and Afghani pipelines.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:


And how about fraud and theft that are "allowed" within an unregulated market?

And moral and businessmen in the same sentence ... please give me a break, only moral financial workers have is the endless quest for money ...
Morals, ethics, same thing. You want to impose a standard of ethics upon an industry, you better make sure that it is a worldwide standard or your economy will soon be owned by another nation with less scruples.

Please show examples of fraud and theft that are "allowed" in an unregulated market.
Aaaaand how many have been convicted for unleashing the last financial crisis?
Some. The fraudulent mortgage lenders who didn't even do credit checks before they signed off on loans (and then sold the loans to banks) were the real culprits. I believe quite a few people from Countrywide ended up in jail.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


One way to fuck over the Chinese is to stop trading with them. Can't sell a product without customers.
The Chinese can bankrupt the US at any given time so I'd be a tad careful with that ...
System works both ways.

America needs to be a lot more economically nationalist like Australia. Shit, the gov has huge ads saying "BUY AUSTRALIAN MADE OR WERE FUCKED COZ OUR KIDS WONT HAVE JOBS" ads.

If the US just started pouring its money in properly they could rebuy all the Chinese debt. And fuck, China needs Iraqi oil and Afghani pipelines.
Well, just like systems of ethics, free trade only works if it's a two way street. If one side has protectionist economic practices it puts everyone else who is trading freely at a disadvantage. We here in America tend to use a one size fits all approach when it comes to setting economic and trading policies. What we need to do is match our own trade regulations to those of our trading partners. You protect an industry and we'll do the same. You peg your currency to ours (hello Chinese) and we'll inflate our currency to the point it makes you unable to do so any longer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:


The Chinese can bankrupt the US at any given time so I'd be a tad careful with that ...
System works both ways.

America needs to be a lot more economically nationalist like Australia. Shit, the gov has huge ads saying "BUY AUSTRALIAN MADE OR WERE FUCKED COZ OUR KIDS WONT HAVE JOBS" ads.

If the US just started pouring its money in properly they could rebuy all the Chinese debt. And fuck, China needs Iraqi oil and Afghani pipelines.
Well, just like systems of ethics, free trade only works if it's a two way street. If one side has protectionist economic practices it puts everyone else who is trading freely at a disadvantage. We here in America tend to use a one size fits all approach when it comes to setting economic and trading policies. What we need to do is match our own trade regulations to those of our trading partners. You protect an industry and we'll do the same. You peg your currency to ours (hello Chinese) and we'll inflate our currency to the point it makes you unable to do so any longer.
To truly protect your country, fuck free trade. NAFTA fucked over North America pretty much.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard