paul386
Member
+22|6550
I hear people constantly blaim current economic trouble on an "unregulated market".

How can you possibly believe this?

Do you honestly believe the US economy is not regulated?





"Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation.  In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.



It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient.  It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating.  They are making their best guesses when formulating rules.  It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow.  Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void.  For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.



The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates.  Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats.  They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe.  How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?  Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested.   It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement.  Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education.  After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test.  But, this does not guarantee educational excellence.  Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.  Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is?  Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it?  I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case.  Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.



These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy.  With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats.  The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes.  The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.



Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy.  This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in.  Rather, it will only exacerbate it."

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLO … tail.shtml

Last edited by paul386 (2008-11-05 21:41:32)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

Regulation was dropped and has been lowered since the Reagan era.

The banks were able to get away with a lot more than they would've been had they been better regulated.

eg: Some banks were making massive loans from other banks. So when one fell, the other lost out too. Domino effect.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
paul386
Member
+22|6550

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Regulation was dropped and has been lowered since the Reagan era.

The banks were able to get away with a lot more than they would've been had they been better regulated.

eg: Some banks were making massive loans from other banks. So when one fell, the other lost out too. Domino effect.
But banks were loaning because "regulators" in the federal reserve were making artificial low interest rates...

Not to mention the "Community Reinvestment Act"....

These banks were already highly regulated. Their failing highlights the failure of regulation.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina
To an extent, I agree with Paul.

Some of this crisis was the result of the ill-advised Community Reinvestment Act.  When regulations are put into place that push a social agenda but ignore practical business sense, it puts the entire market at risk.

On the other hand, the removal of regulations also were to blame -- like the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which basically allowed mortgage derivatives to go wild.

So, what we need is more regulation aimed at practical business sense and the removal of all regulation that pushes social agendas which contradict what is best for the market.

Moderation is the key.
NgoDamWei
Member
+7|5968|Western North Carolina
"Do you honestly believe the US economy is not regulated?"

I believe the problem is not the quantity of regulation but the quality, ie, how well will it stand against the inevitable intentional abuse which will follow. 

Societies have well established regulation against physical harm but those against, if you will will, economic, pecuniary harm are constantly evolving. 

Letters of the law are black/white while connivance against the spirit of the law will always be grey: "Nothing states I can't do it, therefore, ...".  That may work well in the scientific world but fiscally it is a disaster in the making.

It is those "therefore"s which plant the seeds of abuse and it's not until the forest is infested with kudzu do we realize it was only a good idea at the time and now requires a herd of goats, regulators so to speak.  The roots, now well established, will always be there.  Remove the goats, guess what happens. 

Most regulation is post facto and unfortunately does nothing to extract retribution/re numeration for abuses.   That merely breeds a new class of abusive farmers and the process begins anew.   

Only when we enforce the spirit of the law and extract the appropriate pecuniary retribution will we progress.  If you deceitfully gleaned $1B you Ngo Dam Wei certainly won't have  a $200M estate to hide within ever again.
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6648|tropical regions of london
ron paul is a douche
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Poor lending practices has a lot to do with this. The Democrats practically mandated it. I know that sounds partisan, but from the facts I've seen I can't help but feel that way.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7041|Salt Lake City

Kmarion wrote:

Poor lending practices has a lot to do with this. The Democrats practically mandated it. I know that sounds partisan, but from the facts I've seen I can't help but feel that way.
And I've seen stats that say when banks followed the idea behind it, keeping some of the loans and instruments within the communities they served, the rates for failure were in line with more traditional loans.  Banks started finding that they could extract large fees with sub-prime loans, and they ran with it.  They qualified borrowers that should never have qualified even under CRA guidelines, but there was money to be made and a way to break up and sell of the mortgages using instruments so complex and that even Wall Street couldn't understand them.  Not to mention that these instruments were getting AAA ratings when they should never had gotten such a rating.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860
The answer is: to a certain extent. And the term is 'under-regulated', not 'unregulated'. And nothing forced banks to make imprudent decisions vis a vis lending.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6590
The CRA: the ultimate scapegoat.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/ … 1-7-08.pdf
Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in
foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods.
Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high
cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely
to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio.....

Of course, CRA Banks, even in their own assessment areas, have a relatively small
portion of the mortgage market. In the 15 metropolitan areas analyzed, the CRA Bank market
share of all loan originations was less than 25 percent, limiting the law’s impact on the subprime
crisis.
The CRA banks didn't have enough market share to be the cause of the sub-prime crisis and proved to have better lending practices than those not covered by it.

In this case, increased regulation was definately a positive thing.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

PureFodder wrote:

The CRA: the ultimate scapegoat.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/ … 1-7-08.pdf
Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in
foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods.
Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high
cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely
to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio.....

Of course, CRA Banks, even in their own assessment areas, have a relatively small
portion of the mortgage market. In the 15 metropolitan areas analyzed, the CRA Bank market
share of all loan originations was less than 25 percent, limiting the law’s impact on the subprime
crisis.
The CRA banks didn't have enough market share to be the cause of the sub-prime crisis and proved to have better lending practices than those not covered by it.

In this case, increased regulation was definately a positive thing.
Somebody who obviously hasn't got the slightest clue about the secondary market... or just doesn't care to look at the evidence. The fact that they were guaranteed and backed by the government regardless of who bought them was crucial in deciding who got the loans (CRA or not). Scapegoat my ass. CRA's DROVE the market.. they set the bar by which all of their competitors had to chase. Otherwise they would have lost all of their market share. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.

To cast a blind eye that obvious econic fact and simply blame "the profit motive" is ludicrous.

It is equally ludicrious to blame Wall Street and investment banks when what they did was buy up the risky mortgages that became so prevelant in the market place.

Granted, no one intened to lose money, but, to lay blame on capitalism when the real source of the problem was government in the first place indicates to me a fundamental lack of economic understanding.
The government puts it's hands on 95% of ALL home loans by the time they are satisfied here. In some manner or another.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard