BF2S Forums Fraud, lies and your neighborhood banker

By whom? There is no law which says companies must pay dividends.
No-one on the board or exec team would ever get a job again, but they probably wouldn't need to.

I worked for a company which raised U$1Billion from shares and burnt through the lot without ever paying a cent in dividends.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-17 06:21:22)

Companies only need to be regulated as far as producing truthful accounts, have a properly constituted board etc. The consequence of an individual company failing is likely to be small.

Banks and merchant banks need more regulation, eg not loaning out 129 times the amount they have on deposit, since the consequence of them failing is global economic meltdown.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Do you call the OP "reliable"?

Of course not...  or rather...  I consider the subject matter of the OP to be a discussion of why the current system is unreliable.

As do I. So if this level of regulation failed, how could the government successfully carry out any higher level of regulation?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uh, why?

You act like the world would crumble, despite no evidence or reason to believe that is so.

The world wouldn't, but life for most people would be a lot less desirable.  Giving mostly free reign to big business is a terrible idea, and the evidence was shown by this crisis.

Again, despite any evidence.

The evidence you attribute to free market failures is severely flawed - setting up a situation where businesses are supported by the government is the polar opposite of capitalism. People associate "big business" and everything that is good for big business to be the ideals of capitalism, when in fact big businesses are usually built on government intervention and a lack of competition. Capitalism means investment money abounds - there is never a shortage of competition.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

And satisfaction is a fundamental right? You deserve satisfaction despite being presented with anything satisfactory?

You pointlessly shift your standards for no gain other than personal relief. That seems pretty selfish to me. To comprehend an ideal and not hold those capable of it to that standard, instead allowing the unacceptable in the name of the past despite the future, is patronizing yourself and the human race.

Only an ideologue sees it that way.  Reality dictates adaptation.  I go with what history has shown us rather than what satisfies any given ideals.  Your own rigidity of thought in this regard is what I'd call self-absorbed.

Yes, reality dictates adaptation. Following history however is a fucking joke - the idea of our scientific persuasion alone absolutely invalidates the notion. Technology radically changes the world around us every 50 years, necessitating social change in a way completely unpredicted by the past.

Like it or not, we are venturing into the darkness. The only difference is you are walking in backwards.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What is disaster? Natural business cycle fluctuations? Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Oligopolies and monopolies are not evil, they are not unbreakable by the market, the stigma that surrounds them made of more dogma than reason. /generic response to inevitably be followed by the rehashing of the same discussion

Inaction is criminal neglect...when something bad actually happens.

And it's only your dogma and what appears to be absolute faith in the market that serves as the basis of your argument.

There's a major difference between "natural business cycle fluctuations" and disasters.  The mortgage meltdown was not natural, because it was a distorted market due to speculation, leveraging, and certain bad regulations.

With the appropriate regulations, markets fluctuate to a lesser degree.

I have zero faith in the market. I have faith in people. If you have no faith in people at a very fundamental level then you really should just off yourself now and save yourself a lot of pain and heartache.

The mortgage meltdown was the product of the bastard child that is our economic system. It's biggest flaws don't lie in the mother or the father, but the product of the two.

In any case there is a lot of wah wah but it is not that bad. Seriously. People expect 100% sunny days and that is just not the case. If you start having depressions that last half a lifetime, okay we'll talk. Otherwise that is the way the world works.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I have zero faith in the market. I have faith in people. If you have no faith in people at a very fundamental level then you really should just off yourself now and save yourself a lot of pain and heartache.

The mortgage meltdown was the product of the bastard child that is our economic system. It's biggest flaws don't lie in the mother or the father, but the product of the two.

In any case there is a lot of wah wah but it is not that bad. Seriously. People expect 100% sunny days and that is just not the case. If you start having depressions that last half a lifetime, okay we'll talk. Otherwise that is the way the world works.

And who are these people who've earned such faith?  The people buying homes they couldn't afford?  The people hustling subprimes for that commission?  The people packaging and selling those subprime securities for their commission?  The people falsely rating those securities commission?  The people buying those securities?  The people betting against those securities?

People will do whatever they can to make their buck.  The market in which you have zero faith isn't some mystical machine or program, it's people, at every level.  People you do have faith in?  You don't trust the mechanism but you trust the cogs within the mechanism?

Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-04-17 11:15:43)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As do I. So if this level of regulation failed, how could the government successfully carry out any higher level of regulation?

...by divorcing regulators from conflicts of interest.  For example, a judge is not allowed to rule on a case that he/she has a vested interest in.  By the same token, all regulators of the market should be completely unconnected to any of the major players in it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Again, despite any evidence.

The evidence you attribute to free market failures is severely flawed - setting up a situation where businesses are supported by the government is the polar opposite of capitalism. People associate "big business" and everything that is good for big business to be the ideals of capitalism, when in fact big businesses are usually built on government intervention and a lack of competition. Capitalism means investment money abounds - there is never a shortage of competition.

You're talking about a capitalistic ideal.  Ideal markets rarely ever exist.  Most markets have at least a slight cronyist angle to them.  Even if no government existed, competition would never be perfect.

Besides, competition in and of itself is a temporary arrangement for most markets.  Naturally, markets become more oligopolistic over time.  Competition dwindles, and therefore, so does consumer choice.

The reality of the matter is that regulation has to be in place to foster competition.  The problem is that many of the regulators of today are colluding with the big players -- hence the bailouts.  This is not only a failure of government but of capitalism itself.  Corporations corrupt government.  They always have and always will, but the best you can do is be vigilant in throwing out corrupt regulators and prosecuting corrupt companies.

So yes, it has everything to do with capitalism and how it's applied in reality.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yes, reality dictates adaptation. Following history however is a fucking joke - the idea of our scientific persuasion alone absolutely invalidates the notion. Technology radically changes the world around us every 50 years, necessitating social change in a way completely unpredicted by the past.

Like it or not, we are venturing into the darkness. The only difference is you are walking in backwards.

Your arrogance is fucking amazing sometimes.

Technology changes the world, but it doesn't change human nature.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I have zero faith in the market. I have faith in people. If you have no faith in people at a very fundamental level then you really should just off yourself now and save yourself a lot of pain and heartache.

The mortgage meltdown was the product of the bastard child that is our economic system. It's biggest flaws don't lie in the mother or the father, but the product of the two.

In any case there is a lot of wah wah but it is not that bad. Seriously. People expect 100% sunny days and that is just not the case. If you start having depressions that last half a lifetime, okay we'll talk. Otherwise that is the way the world works.

I'm sure you'd feel differently if you lost your house.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-17 11:45:27)

Reciprocity wrote:

And who are these people who've earned such faith?

Me myself and I.

Reciprocity wrote:

The market in which you have zero faith isn't some mystical machine or program, it's people, at every level.  People you do have faith in?  You don't trust the mechanism but you trust the cogs within the mechanism?

Precisely.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But that is impossible. The regulators are connected to their charges by the very fact that they are regulating them.

That's like saying it's impossible to have impartial judges because they are connected to cases.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Competition does not dwindle over time. You say this a lot, but you never provide reasoning for it and frankly I don't understand why you would even think so. Competition springs from monopolies, people get into a business because they think they can do it better than everyone else in the sector. You don't look for a competitive market to jump into.

Capitalism does not condone government working with corporations. Capitalism doesn't want the government to have anything to do with corporations. Don't blame capitalism for corporations corrupting the government when that avenue of influence is opened up in the first place by the very un-capitalistic practice of the government intervening in purely economic affairs.

Forget it...   We're never going to agree on this.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But that is impossible. The regulators are connected to their charges by the very fact that they are regulating them.

That's like saying it's impossible to have impartial judges because they are connected to cases.

Which is true, but judges have a lot more vetting to get to the position they are in than various government oversight committees. I would be thrilled if politicians as a whole were on average as honest as judges.

ATG wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

So what if homeowners owe more on their homes than they are worth.

Well, let's make a list;

They walk, depressing the surrounding markets.

To realistic value.

ATG wrote:

They stop doing home improvements, which devastates the construction industry. 

Who buy trucks from car dealers when they have jobs. As well as tools, ladders, and pay into the system via payroll withwoldings.


and people start losing jobs, as various businesses that normally service these customers see revenues fold.

And yet they had no problem charging full+ rates during the great times.  And raking in the money during the good times.

ATG wrote:

I could go on. But I know the point would be lost on you as your entire post was composed of ignorance. Why are so many so vapid that they fail to see that we are all interconnected?

Interconnected, yes.  Save the irresponsible/high risk takers/bad decisions on the backs of the responsible/low risk takers/safe decisions folks?

ATG wrote:

Here's another tip bro; tax revenues are in a freefall.


This shit is just getting started, and it will be much worse than it should be because a large percentage of the population and government thinks they will be immune.

" It's a recession when my neighbor losses his job. It's a depression when I lose mine. "


So said FDR on the attitude of a lot of people during the great depression.

And when tax revenues were pouring, they had no problem spending it.


Point is, you win some, you lose some.  But you can handle the lean times if you save a bit during the feast times.  Don't go buying homes based on feast income.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-04-19 13:45:59)