BF2S Forums We Have Nothing to Show For All of Our Debt

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  Limits are relative, not arbitrary.  This most recent collapse could be used to determine a reasonable limit by observing the likelihood of failure among different levels of leveraging.  This is most certainly something that could be logically and empirically determined through evidence.

But there are all different types of leverage, and all different types of risk. Investing in high yield bonds is relatively risky and this is reflected in their return rate. However, they only have approximately a 10% failure rate which more than makes up for the negatives.

Why do you feel that you should be able to set the risk level for any company? You don't own them, and neither does the government.

But, as we've seen, they own the government.  The only counterbalance is to set a few limits on their actions.

Uhh, yeah. That's why you need to take a seriously long look at your stance on regulation. I'm currently reading a book called Payback, it's the story of what the establishment forces via the government did to Michael Milken in 1989. The lengths that Rudy Giuliani went to to kill what the media called "The Decade of Greed" would make your stomach turn. He was prosecuting people on accounting technicalities and turning what were seriously minor offenses into huge felonies with hundred million dollar plus penalties all so he could score points in the media and gain the national exposure necessary to fuel his run for Mayor. He was used as a tool by the enemies of Drexel, companies that had watched their marketshare and profitability plummet throughout the 1980s because they couldn't compete or adapt, to put a major competitor and market dominator out of business. He succeeded. Drexel went bankrupt and Milken was sentenced to ten years on the flimsiest of charges. He was forced to plead guilty to six felonies or they were going to not only continue making his life a living hell like they had for the previous four years, they were going to throw his brother in jail too. Guess who funded the lions share of Giuliani's campaign when he ran in 1989? The establishment forces that used him to kill off Drexel.

This is the result of your so called regulation. All it does is entrench the status quo. Who writes legislation? It's the old boy network of landed money. Whether they go into politics or go into business, it's the same people protecting themselves from upstart competitors. If you can't compete, hire a lobbyist.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-29 12:31:18)

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But, as we've seen, they own the government.  The only counterbalance is to set a few limits on their actions.

Uhh, yeah. That's why you need to take a seriously long look at your stance on regulation. I'm currently reading a book called Payback, it's the story of what the establishment forces via the government did to Michael Milken in 1989. The lengths that Rudy Giuliani went to to kill what the media called "The Decade of Greed" would make your stomach turn. He was prosecuting people on accounting technicalities and turning what were seriously minor offenses into huge felonies with hundred million dollar plus penalties all so he could score points in the media and gain the national exposure necessary to fuel his run for Mayor. He was used as a tool by the enemies of Drexel, companies that had watched their marketshare and profitability plummet throughout the 1980s because they couldn't compete or adapt, to put a major competitor and market dominator out of business. He succeeded. Drexel went bankrupt and Milken was sentenced to ten years on the flimsiest of charges. He was forced to plead guilty to six felonies or they were going to not only continue making his life a living hell like they had for the previous four years, they were going to throw his brother in jail too. Guess who funded the lions share of Giuliani's campaign when he ran in 1989? The establishment forces that used him to kill off Drexel.

This is the result of your so called regulation. All it does is entrench the status quo. Who writes legislation? It's the old boy network of landed money. Whether they go into politics or go into business, it's the same people protecting themselves from upstart competitors. If you can't compete, hire a lobbyist.

...and it would become even more entrenched without government as a regulator.  If you want to see what extremes occur without a functioning government that regulates things properly...   look at Africa.

Without intervention in the market, corporations run things even more than they currently do.  The only hope we have of maintaining any personal liberties in the face of corporate power is to at least have halfway effective regulations to keep the more blatant abuses of power at bay.

Things only get worse if the market is allowed to completely run by itself.  The closest we came to that was during the Gilded Age.

But I'm sure you'll just dismiss that argument like you did the last time we discussed that.

You mean the age that is responsible for our current economic prosperity? The age that created the foundation for everything that's been built since? Awful time period.

The government doesn't act as a regulator, it acts as a corrupt scorekeeper who decides the winner and loser based on who bribes it enough.

The government as regulator would simply hear civil lawsuits between firms or individuals vs firms and decide if there was a crime committed based on there being a victim involved. Most of the regulations in this country are completely arbitrary and asinine and designed to favor whatever company pushed for the regulations' interests.

JohnG@lt wrote:

You mean the age that is responsible for our current economic prosperity? The age that created the foundation for everything that's been built since? Awful time period.

Alrighty then, Andrew Ryan.  I figured you were going to go with your stock "mercantilist" argument.  I love how you switch between that and this particular argument depending on which flaw I bring up.

For example, the last time we discussed this, you brought up mercantilism when I mentioned how prevalent monopolies were during that age.

Now, you're saying it was a great time for prosperity -- even stretching so far as to credit it with why we have our current prosperity.

Make up your mind.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The government doesn't act as a regulator, it acts as a corrupt scorekeeper who decides the winner and loser based on who bribes it enough.

And as a result, we have to constantly hold politicians accountable by demanding they produce regulations that restrict corporations in ways that benefit the public interest.

This inevitably results in some bad regulations sometimes and corrupt officials that betray our trust, but to simply toss away this part of governance for the market to handle independently is naive.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The government as regulator would simply hear civil lawsuits between firms or individuals vs firms and decide if there was a crime committed based on there being a victim involved. Most of the regulations in this country are completely arbitrary and asinine and designed to favor whatever company pushed for the regulations' interests.

In your opinion.  And in an opinion that seems to ignore most of reality.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The government doesn't act as a regulator, it acts as a corrupt scorekeeper who decides the winner and loser based on who bribes it enough.

And as a result, we have to constantly hold politicians accountable by demanding they produce regulations that restrict corporations in ways that benefit the public interest.

This inevitably results in some bad regulations sometimes and corrupt officials that betray our trust, but to simply toss away this part of governance for the market to handle independently is naive.

And what exactly is the 'public's interest' beyond whatever price is currently showing on the stock ticker? Why is it that you feel mob rule is a good substitute for real leadership within a company? Why should anyone that isn't a holder of stock in the company have any say whatsoever in how a company is run? Yes, it's entirely rational to wish to subordinate the leaders of our nations corporations to the wishes and whims of the media instead of reality.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The government as regulator would simply hear civil lawsuits between firms or individuals vs firms and decide if there was a crime committed based on there being a victim involved. Most of the regulations in this country are completely arbitrary and asinine and designed to favor whatever company pushed for the regulations' interests.

In your opinion.  And in an opinion that seems to ignore most of reality.

Who exactly is ignoring reality? You have some high minded ideal that whatever you've been told works. Fuck that. You can't even cite a single example of good regulation. You're as brainwashed as harmor.

JohnG@lt wrote:

And what exactly is the 'public's interest' beyond whatever price is currently showing on the stock ticker? Why is it that you feel mob rule is a good substitute for real leadership within a company? Why should anyone that isn't a holder of stock in the company have any say whatsoever in how a company is run? Yes, it's entirely rational to wish to subordinate the leaders of our nations corporations to the wishes and whims of the media instead of reality.

Yeah, because market stability is such a bad thing.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Who exactly is ignoring reality? You have some high minded ideal that whatever you've been told works. Fuck that. You can't even cite a single example of good regulation. You're as brainwashed as harmor.

Oh fuck you.  I'm done with you in this conversation.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Why are you so afraid of corporations? Governments have committed heinous crimes against humanity.

Africa is dysfunctional for a few reasons. They don't have their own strong legs to stand on, and foreign aid keeps it that way. All that money goes to corrupt governments and tribal leaders. More failed intervention.

And corporations have as well.  They still do in Africa.

But that's ok, because I know libertarians can be very creative at blaming EVERYTHING on government.

But alas, dogma does that to people.

Last I recall on my lofty history on Africa, it was the European powers that charted out Africa and grouped people unrealistically together who apparently were divided in the first place.

Yep, they did.  But that's not the whole of what's happened since....

Phrozenbot wrote:

Hey we're all still friends, right?

I'm not bothering responding to John because I'm sure he'll have some bullshit reason for disregarding every example I give.  He always manages one no matter how far fetched it is.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Hey we're all still friends, right?

I'm not bothering responding to John because I'm sure he'll have some bullshit reason for disregarding every example I give.  He always manages one no matter how far fetched it is.

No, I'm down for a real discussion, I won't go all personal attacky. School me Obi Wan, I will be young Skywalker.

Look, I know I fly off of the handle sometimes.  We all do.  I know this sounds random, but I'm about to enter a chess match.   I will be on in a few hours though.  By then, I should be less....  on edge.

Sorry about the outbursts though....

When you get back, start by explaining why the FDIC exists

Karbin wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

When you get back, start by explaining why the FDIC exists

I'm not getting pushy John, but what's your problem with FDIC?

Have patience

Dilbert_X wrote:

Harmor wrote:

One note, I'm for responsibly spending for the military to protect our country; if we don't have security we don't have much of a country (look at Mexico for an example).

You're confusing military and policing, they are two totally different things.
Would the crime rate in America be different if the army didn't exist? No.

In a completely static world where no country would invade another I see your point.

Harmor wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Harmor wrote:

One note, I'm for responsibly spending for the military to protect our country; if we don't have security we don't have much of a country (look at Mexico for an example).

You're confusing military and policing, they are two totally different things.
Would the crime rate in America be different if the army didn't exist? No.

In a completely static world where no country would invade another I see your point.

So how is there a connection with Mexico's problems and its weak military?
Are they being invaded by another country?
Are their foreign interests being affected by another country?

They have an internal policing problem, thats it.