Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer as FCC Chief

[qdemn7]

Many of the responses here just prove to me that the United States' TRUE religion isn't Christianity, Judaism, or even Freedom, rather it's Mammon. To paraphrase the song "One Tin Soldier":

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Mammon,
You can justify it in the end.

Or to put in another way

"I'm all right, Jack!!"

 

[The Red]

lol, I need a clue?

I think the majority of people on this forum need a clue. It seems NOBODY knows even what net neutrality is besides the definition blogs have fed them. It isn't the "descrimination between 1's and 0's" or "nobody owns the internet". It's the GOVERNMENT has the final say so in the internet. Fuck that. Why the hell do you want THEM controlling your content/speed/isp's/etc? I swear, you guys are on crack. Might as well just give away your freedoms and choice as a consumer right now. Net neutrality isn't anything more than allowing the government to get it's foot further in the door to regulate YOU the consumer. They would then be able to say this region needs something because the other region has it or doesn't have it, and who is responsible for footing the bill? It's the same thing that keeps driving companies under because of government regulation. It forces them to make non-business decisions which they don't have the money for at the current rates people are willing to pay for their service.

And no, I don't work for Commiecast, I hate the company with a passion, and I'd never use their service.

But thanks TheRedCommunist.. thank you for the insightful commentary on how we need more government controlling every aspect of our lives. "Net Neutrality SECURES equal online competition between all businesses, irrelevant of providers." .... ahahaha, that "equal competition" is a clue to death of companies right there. Do you know what that means? It means the smaller companies have to pay up BIGTIME in order to meet every specification that the largest ISP meets, or else they tank. Then you're stuck with one mega corporation like COMCAST, and they set the standard. Then the government also tells them what other standards they have to meet and basically controls them "for the good of the people". Read a little more Karl Marx for us and vomit some ideas through the keyboard. Communist.

You're out of your crack-pot mind. Net Neutrality is the standard that gave birth to the current internet and all the new businesses. We're looking to SECURE it... you have to be, and I mean seriously, delusional, to not understand this. You're cautioning against Net Neutrality, when we've had it since inception. and NONE of the shit you're saying #1 makes any coherent sense, and #2 has even come close to materializing.

We .... already .... use .... Net .... Neutrality. We're looking to guarantee its survival, not based on some theory, but proven patterns from the past when a few companies are allowed to have the monopoly on things like Rail Roads, Phones, Electricity, etc.. and are found to do everything in their power to ensure UN-NATURAL & UN-EQUAL competition advantages. (You know, its called Fascism when its a nation-wide policy, like you'd prefer.)

Last but not least, dont get me started on your lack of knowledge on either Communism or Karl Marx.

 

[w1retap]

You're out of your crack-pot mind. Net Neutrality is the standard that gave birth to the current internet and all the new businesses. We're looking to SECURE it... you have to be, and I mean seriously, delusional, to not understand this. You're cautioning against Net Neutrality, when we've had it since inception. and NONE of the shit you're saying #1 makes any coherent sense, and #2 has even come close to materializing.

We .... already .... use .... Net .... Neutrality. We're looking to guarantee its survival, not based on some theory, but proven patterns from the past when a few companies are allowed to have the monopoly on things like Rail Roads, Phones, Electricity, etc.. and are found to do everything in their power to ensure UN-NATURAL & UN-EQUAL competition advantages. (You know, its called Fascism when its a nation-wide policy, like you'd prefer.)

Last but not least, dont get me started on your lack of knowledge on either Communism or Karl Marx.

No we're not... they're looking to give more government control over private sector business. I stand completely the opposite of your Marxist philosophy, and everyone knows that.. Sorry.. I just believe in the people controlling their own business, not the government telling them how they need to run it. It's very obvious I do not support a fascist state, because it's exactly the opposite of what I'm advocating, and quite frankly, it's one of the tenants that you are advocating. I mean, it's hilarious, you can't even identify your own ideas. I have the crack pot mind? ahahah, listen to yourself.

You're advocating government strongholds in the private sector and you don't even realize it.. amazing. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of this and read it... because you obviously have no idea that what you're advocating is practically word for word.

 

[w1retap]

You're out of your crack-pot mind. Net Neutrality is the standard that gave birth to the current internet and all the new businesses. We're looking to SECURE it... you have to be, and I mean seriously, delusional, to not understand this. You're cautioning against Net Neutrality, when we've had it since inception. and NONE of the shit you're saying #1 makes any coherent sense, and #2 has even come close to materializing.

We .... already .... use .... Net .... Neutrality. We're looking to guarantee its survival, not based on some theory, but proven patterns from the past when a few companies are allowed to have the monopoly on things like Rail Roads, Phones, Electricity, etc.. and are found to do everything in their power to ensure UN-NATURAL & UN-EQUAL competition advantages. (You know, its called Fascism when its a nation-wide policy, like you'd prefer.)

Last but not least, dont get me started on your lack of knowledge on either Communism or Karl Marx.

Let's find where you extrapolate your need for survival and control. Tell me, do you know the 10 planks of communism?

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

 

[Methadras]

We DO have dedicated circuits everywhere. On our most critical circuits, they're point to point. However, a lot of the others still have to transverse the internet (yup, same one as you bud), in which from what's been said, my QoS will be disregarded. QoS means everything, even on our PtP circuits. You obviously don't have much of a clue how it works or what it's supposed to do.

I understand what QoS is in reference to prioritizing packet data. That's exactly what you are talking about here and nothing more. In a net neutral world where they have to traverse to the net, your data packets are treated like any other. How you deal with that I'm not sure, but I have a pretty good clue of what you are talking about and QoS currently means everything to you only in reference to what you want to prioritize and why should anyone else but you and your organization care about that. Once it goes out on the net you are still at the whim of network conditions anyway. Bud.

 

[The Red]

No we're not... they're looking to give more government control over private sector business. I stand completely the opposite of your Marxist philosophy, and everyone knows that.. Sorry.. I just believe in the people controlling their own business, not the government telling them how they need to run it. It's very obvious I do not support a fascist state, because it's exactly the opposite of what I'm advocating, and quite frankly, it's one of the tenants that you are advocating. I mean, it's hilarious, you can't even identify your own ideas. I have the crack pot mind? ahahah, listen to yourself.

You're advocating government strongholds in the private sector and you don't even realize it.. amazing. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of this and read it... because you obviously have no idea that what you're advocating is practically word for word.

I mean, whats the point of arguing with you. You'd argue that the Net Neutrality system we're ALREADY USING... is communism... when its obviously one of the most liberal systems in the world... aside from the real socialist Sweden & Norway and to a lesser extent France. (Oh the IRONY)

-----------------

You want to start flashing credentials?

<- Born, 1983, City of Gomel, Republic of Belarus, USSR, crossed the pond in 92' ... I've read your book in its original form. I still have my old school uniform & my first Star of Lenin. I've LIVED an attempt to imitate that book. And unlike you're accusations, I do not support communism, which you my friend, have neither lived nor understand.

I mne ne nado tebye eto dakazivat' pa ta mu shto ti polnostu durak... polnostu.

I know your kind, from my own homeland. Anyone whose view is different from theirs is automatically labeled a dissident and made a target of. Except here, people get to see how crazy the labeler is, and the label carries no more weight than the credibility of the labeler. I wish I could introduce people like yourself to your real counterparts during arguments like this.

(On a lesser note, I didnt speak a word of English till i was almost 10, and I seem to have mastered it better than you have.)

-------------

I'm a liberal democrat ... and none, and I mean *absolutely* none, of the things I believe in, resemble anything I know of my family's former world. In fact, its COMPLETE opposites. How you cant see the extreme conservative nature of communism and how liberalism stands in direct opposition, I admit, I do not understand. I look to work against the tyrannical limitations the conservatives like to disguise & lob into their policies that have little to do with govt but everything to do with how they believe people should behave in their private lives and who in the Public & Private sector should hold the power ($$).

Some part of me believes they do it to pander to the ignorant masses they can align into voting blocks. But then when a constituent drinks their own cool-aid for years & then becomes an elected official, they become the deranged, self-delusional, GOP-Bus drivers, drunk with power, and steering like madmen cloned from Limbaugh.

IMHO, I KNOW the republican party was not like Limbaugh in the past, but the people they got in bed with, are destroying them. And they cant jump out of bed with them, ala: Steele vs. Limbaugh.

Why? Because when they saw the Senator McCarthy sign on the wall, they chose not to stop.

--------------------

Seeing them lobby against Net Neutrality and pretending its not self-serving with every respect to the telecoms contributions & obligations to the party, infuriates me.

Net Neutrality is not a hand-out, its a policy, that, in its effect, De-Regulates the internet from ANY Govt OR Business controls. (Obviously aside from those that can be democratically & transparently agreed upon. (ie: child porn))

My point? ... you're blind to seeing that real Communist countries, like China, Cuba, and on the lighter side Venezuala... have the Complete Opposite of Net Neutrality... with controls and monitors on just about everything. Go ahead and pick a middle-eastern Tyrrany and I'll show you how they're doing exactly what you're espousing. The only difference? ... These govts don't need to slow down a site they dont like (they dont need that disguise), they just shut it off, and not just foreign competition to their local vendors, and all business with unfriendly foreign entities (ie: you cant buy from Israel online while in Iran) but any and all sites that disagree with their govt or state-religious views.

These are the decisions you're proposing our "selfless, un-buyable, duly-accountable, fair competition-espousing" communications companies, should make.

 

[The Red]

And there's enough irony in my last sentence to fill your monthly dietary requirement, so think before you overdose.

(damn no edit button after hitting submit instead of preview)

 

[Gorankar]

The Red, do you honestly believe the cavalcade of power hungry idiots in Washington are capable of producing and passing a Bill that actually would guarantee NN as you see it?

I don't agree with NN based on consumption growing faster than infrastructure and the fact that network management is and/or will be needed at times, at local levels at the very least, to insure QoS and adequate bandwidth is available to business customers that paid extra for QoS. We seem to disagree on that, and that is fine but, the question I asked at the beginning of this post is an important one.

I for one thing the Bill they will come up with will be several thousand pages, include many items that have nothing to do with NN, and either include loopholes that render the Bill mostly useless or clauses so stupidly restrictive that our current levels of service will be reduced because ISP X network management policy Y that used to do Z to alleviate congestion is no longer legal.

No matter which way we go on this all I can see is pain for we the people.

 

[The Red]

The Red, do you honestly believe the cavalcade of power hungry idiots in Washington are capable of producing and passing a Bill that actually would guarantee NN as you see it?

I don't agree with NN based on consumption growing faster than infrastructure and the fact that network management is and/or will be needed at times, at local levels at the very least, to insure QoS and adequate bandwidth is available to business customers that paid extra for QoS. We seem to disagree on that, and that is fine but, the question I asked at the beginning of this post is an important one.

I for one thing the Bill they will come up with will be several thousand pages, include many items that have nothing to do with NN, and either include loopholes that render the Bill mostly useless or clauses so stupidly restrictive that our current levels of service will be reduced because ISP X network management policy Y that used to do Z to alleviate congestion is no longer legal.

No matter which way we go on this all I can see is pain for we the people.

I ask you... what is easier to step back from within a 4-to-8 year election cycle... an inefficient govt program superimposed over a network that tries to ensure that network remains in a status quo... or a free-for-all legalized corporate internet orgy around a handful of the biggest US communications companies.

You prompt serious QoS questions that govt cant legislate into existing when its an infrastructural impossibility. What you miss is that, Tele-Com companies cant guarantee those QoS to their customers for the same infrastructural impossibility conundrums. And will be forced to ARTIFICIALLY create Cost-Benefit to suit their customers... ala whole-sale metering, filtering, and Lower-Tiering of other content. Its how business works, and has worked in other places.

You saw cell phone companies Tier their services, even though it didnt cost extra by any means, as so much less info is transmitted via cell phone than a pc, the fraction of the cost of the data is minuscule. Its a profit motive and scheme that actually worked, and I'm not going to rail entirely against. Why? Because there is sufficient competition. While in the world of high-speed internet Tele-Coms, it is painfully obvious that there is very little diversity, and a high incentive to monopolize that has been forced into legislation because the Tele-Coms will do anything and everything they think they can get away with. Its an unbreakable historical pattern, like war.

A living example of how capitalism fails when there are few choices, yet people argue that companies trying to destroy and devour the competition to create less of it, is capitalism itself, while it destroys your choices and the consumer-benefiting effect of the capitalist system. The weight of the irony is great.

 

[Gorankar]

I ask you... what is easier to step back from within a 4-to-8 year election cycle... an inefficient govt program superimposed over a network that tries to ensure that network remains in a status quo... or a free-for-all legalized corporate internet orgy around a handful of the biggest US communications companies.

The government program. Once you start one up, they are extremely difficult to get rid of. And attempts at fixing a bad one usually involve just throwing more money at it and not actually changing it anyway that fixes anything. And I doubt they could or even would actually pass a law that maintained any status quo. A telcom orgy would still be fixable, our politicians are capable of fast tracking a reasonable law if there is enough of a public outcry existing to make them worry about re-election. Re-election worries tend to make them forget about the money they took from the lobbyists.

You prompt serious QoS questions that govt cant legislate into existing when its an infrastructural impossibility. What you miss is that, Tele-Com companies cant guarantee those QoS to their customers for the same infrastructural impossibility conundrums. And will be forced to ARTIFICIALLY create Cost-Benefit to suit their customers... ala whole-sale metering, filtering, and Lower-Tiering of other content. Its how business works, and has worked in other places.

Fair argument, but the system is already tiered. At the average person level, metering already goes on. So does capping bandwidth or discontinuing service if you go over some limit. At the corporate level it does as well, many corporations pay an internet bill based on the bandwidth they used. Many business and average person plans are cut into speed and bandwidth tiers already. Though usually you have no idea what your bandwidth cap is in a home user situation.
While is is true that ISP''s can not guarantee QoS if the network has reached total saturation, they can, with proper management, reduce the likelihood of it reaching complete saturation and jeopardizing QoS for businesses by putting some non business packets on the back burner.

You saw cell phone companies Tier their services, even though it didnt cost extra by any means, as so much less info is transmitted via cell phone than a pc, the fraction of the cost of the data is minuscule. Its a profit motive and scheme that actually worked, and I'm not going to rail entirely against. Why? Because there is sufficient competition. While in the world of high-speed internet Tele-Coms, it is painfully obvious that there is very little diversity, and a high incentive to monopolize that has been forced into legislation because the Tele-Coms will do anything and everything they think they can get away with. Its an unbreakable historical pattern, like war.

A living example of how capitalism fails when there are few choices, yet people argue that companies trying to destroy and devour the competition to create less of it, is capitalism itself, while it destroys your choices and the consumer-benefiting effect of the capitalist system. The weight of the irony is great.

That is fairly true, but it does not have to turn out that way. If they want to make a new law and feel like they are doing something, let them break up the monopolies and duopolies that exist in broad band. Restore competition in that way. That is something, our politicians in the US actually know how to do. They are not qualified to, and will not be able to, come up with a law that allows ISP's reasonable network management while at the same time following the tenets of NN.

Well, all we can do is wait and see how they do. If they do pass some sort of network management laws (I will not call it Net Neutrality because it will not be that by the time the politicians actually get a Bill signed into law), My prediction for the next couple years after that is: that it is gonna be a clusterfuck of people running around with their heads cut off not having clue what the hell they are supposed to or can do in the ISP and Telco industry. I doubt it will be good for us consumers.
We will see I guess.........

 

[w1retap]

<elitist self indulgence rant with no point>

Seriously.. I don't care where you're from, what you do, etc. Your view is stemming directly from the 10 planks of communism. That's fine.. whatever you want to believe. I guess even you are just hard pressed to even accept your own bullshit because it makes no sense economically or philosophically.

We do not have net neutrality right now as explained by the wiki's, the 'save the internet' groups, the net neutrality congressional lobbyists, cnet, the 'we are the web' groups, etc. Perhaps you should just go ahead and read what it's all about before you write 14 paragraph responses that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If we had net neutrality right now, the smaller companies would be squeezed right off the map and not allowed to survive. Bandwidth availability would be untiered and have huge slowdowns and flooding on the current infrastructure, government would be telling the prevalent companies what they had to offer in terms of accessibility, there would be eminent domain on the telco's and other private communications related companies, even more bandwidth provisioning would be put in place to guarantee equality, there would be no longer a need for business competitiveness for the benefit of the consumer, etc, etc ,etc.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

And there's enough irony in my last sentence to fill your monthly dietary requirement, so think before you overdose.

(damn no edit button after hitting submit instead of preview)

No Edit button in this section of the website I believe. Otherwise; try F5. A lot of forums tend to only show the EDIT button after a refresh

 

[The Red]

Seriously.. I don't care where you're from, what you do, etc. Your view is stemming directly from the 10 planks of communism. That's fine.. whatever you want to believe. I guess even you are just hard pressed to even accept your own bullshit because it makes no sense economically or philosophically.

We do not have net neutrality right now as explained by the wiki's, the 'save the internet' groups, the net neutrality congressional lobbyists, cnet, the 'we are the web' groups, etc. Perhaps you should just go ahead and read what it's all about before you write 14 paragraph responses that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If we had net neutrality right now, the smaller companies would be squeezed right off the map and not allowed to survive. Bandwidth availability would be untiered and have huge slowdowns and flooding on the current infrastructure, government would be telling the prevalent companies what they had to offer in terms of accessibility, there would be eminent domain on the telco's and other private communications related companies, even more bandwidth provisioning would be put in place to guarantee equality, there would be no longer a need for business competitiveness for the benefit of the consumer, etc, etc ,etc.

If I remember right, the last time your political hodge-podge declared someone elitist, they lost the election. It must be if someone makes an intelligent argument, or can speak eloquently at the podium, they must be elitist. Why? For no better reason than the fact that the other guy cant. Was I suppose to write it with crayon and post a .jpg ? The poster above you understood every word, are you saying you have a learning disability?

Back on topic.

What we had and still have in many places is net neutrality. It is no longer US-Wide, because of metering that you admit is occurring. You keep throwing out the straw-man that neutrality will prevent competition. Competition between WHOM? There are so few TeleCom providers, that its already a monopoly where people have NO choice, in a lot more of the US than where they do have choice. And both, at the cost of service. (ie: there may be a cable modem company & a DSL company, but if all you want is cable modem, you have only 1 choice, ever.)

The competition that NN looks to ensure is not Telecom competition, because they're not dumb enough to fall for it, since its essentially non-existent, but CONTENT competition.

TeleComs dont just do communications, they are in the business of doing the same shit that other online companies do, with search, e-mail, ads, etc... there is NOTHING to stop them from forever-Tiering the competition. *nothing* ... where kind of competitive advantage is that? .. oh thats right, its none, its the monopoly-assurance that the NN law is seeking to fight.

Without NN, its not just the content providers that lose, people lose the content providers.

Because people from Business A that pay $$, and people from Business B that pay $$$$$ will be surfing Google at 1/4 the speed of the Verizon search engine, equally. This, is not competition, its not even capitalism.

 

[w1retap]

If I remember right, the last time your political hodge-podge declared someone elitist, they lost the election. It must be if someone makes an intelligent argument, or can speak eloquently at the podium, they must be elitist. Why? For no better reason than the fact that the other guy cant. Was I suppose to write it with crayon and post a .jpg ? The poster above you understood every word, are you saying you have a learning disability?

Back on topic.

What we had and still have in many places is net neutrality. It is no longer US-Wide, because of metering that you admit is occurring. You keep throwing out the straw-man that neutrality will prevent competition. Competition between WHOM? There are so few TeleCom providers, that its already a monopoly where people have NO choice, in a lot more of the US than where they do have choice. And both, at the cost of service. (ie: there may be a cable modem company & a DSL company, but if all you want is cable modem, you have only 1 choice, ever.)

The competition that NN looks to ensure is not Telecom competition, because they're not dumb enough to fall for it, since its essentially non-existent, but CONTENT competition.

TeleComs dont just do communications, they are in the business of doing the same shit that other online companies do, with search, e-mail, ads, etc... there is NOTHING to stop them from forever-Tiering the competition. *nothing* ... where kind of competitive advantage is that? .. oh thats right, its none, its the monopoly-assurance that the NN law is seeking to fight.

Without NN, its not just the content providers that lose, people lose the content providers.

Because people from Business A that pay $$, and people from Business B that pay $$$$$ will be surfing Google at 1/4 the speed of the Verizon search engine, equally. This, is not competition, its not even capitalism.

Ah, nice elitist first paragraph there... I really believe you have no clue what elitism even is just based off that alone..

Circumstance does not justify national federal regulation. There's a reason the USA was created free with different circumstances for the market. If we based regulation just because of different circumstances people happen to be in across the nation, we'd end up like we did with the non-discriminatory credit lending practices.. but with telco companies. They'd be forced to offer their services at the mercy of what some bureaucrat told them they had to offer and how they had to offer it. The equal service offerings would have the small companies driven out of businesses because they could not meet the demands in order to keep up with the already existing larger companies, thus new smaller companies are forced out of existence and innovation in the market for the consumer suffers. At the end of the day, only the big dogs like AT&T and Comcast survive. Then either they buy out the rest of the telco's, or the government nationalizes them. If that's the case and they must offer equal QoS and bandwidth, rationing must take place to ensure that happens across the country, else we would need a multi-trillion dollar totally revamped infrastructure to meet the demands. There's a reason we have higher tiered prices and packages for dedicated bandwidth lines at the moment. 5% of the customers use 50% of the bandwidth in this country. Make that equal opportunity, and you'd see 5% of the users taking up even more of the pipe with the other 95% struggling to use it, that is unless rationing was implemented.

I mean, in all seriousness, this is basic business knowledge 101.. I feel like I'm explaining something to a child for the first time. Considering you came from living under communism, you sure are eager to return to it's practices.

 

[The Red]

Ah, nice elitist first paragraph there... I really believe you have no clue what elitism even is just based off that alone..

Circumstance does not justify national federal regulation. There's a reason the USA was created free with different circumstances for the market. If we based regulation just because of different circumstances people happen to be in across the nation, we'd end up like we did with the non-discriminatory credit lending practices.. but with telco companies. They'd be forced to offer their services at the mercy of what some bureaucrat told them they had to offer and how they had to offer it. The equal service offerings would have the small companies driven out of businesses because they could not meet the demands in order to keep up with the already existing larger companies, thus new smaller companies are forced out of existence and innovation in the market for the consumer suffers. At the end of the day, only the big dogs like AT&T and Comcast survive. Then either they buy out the rest of the telco's, or the government nationalizes them. If that's the case and they must offer equal QoS and bandwidth, rationing must take place to ensure that happens across the country, else we would need a multi-trillion dollar totally revamped infrastructure to meet the demands. There's a reason we have higher tiered prices and packages for dedicated bandwidth lines at the moment. 5% of the customers use 50% of the bandwidth in this country. Make that equal opportunity, and you'd see 5% of the users taking up even more of the pipe with the other 95% struggling to use it, that is unless rationing was implemented.

I mean, in all seriousness, this is basic business knowledge 101.. I feel like I'm explaining something to a child for the first time. Considering you came from living under communism, you sure are eager to return to it's practices.

You know, I think I'll take your elitist accusations as complements from now on. Every time you say it, its like watching a dog put its tail between its legs.

How many times do I have to beat this argument with a stick... Greenspan & Bernanke both stated that the state of the economy is what it is, because of market deregulation, and said absolutely nothing about the lending you're trying to blame, which NONE of the Banks complained about, even a single peep, till it came time for the neo-con side to blame somebody they didnt like... oh yes, the poor people. The POOR people are the reason lending is trashed... you know, they're responcible for asking for loans, that the bank would give like its fruit and then itself sell off the debt to someone else before receiving payment. Yea, its a scam... by the poor...

Next... Govt isnt nationalizing any TeleCos or telling them what level of service they have to provide... its telling them, they cant discriminate against content providers to create artificial anti-competitive practices. There is nothing being nationalized, I dont know what ass you intend to keep blowing that smoke up into.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

Deregulation is not the problem, bad regulation is the problem.

Without those stupid regulations banks would never have offered those sub-prima mortgages and other absurd mortgages to people who can't really afford them.

 

[Fendrix]

Bernanke and Greenspan are MORONS that have zero credibility. I know you'd like to believe them because they hold a very powerful position by being the chair of the Federal Reserve, but anyone that is in control of a PRIVATE bank that prints money backed by nothing is looking out for nobody but themselves.

 

[w1retap]

You know, I think I'll take your elitist accusations as complements from now on. Every time you say it, its like watching a dog put its tail between its legs.

How many times do I have to beat this argument with a stick... Greenspan & Bernanke both stated that the state of the economy is what it is, because of market deregulation, and said absolutely nothing about the lending you're trying to blame, which NONE of the Banks complained about, even a single peep, till it came time for the neo-con side to blame somebody they didnt like... oh yes, the poor people. The POOR people are the reason lending is trashed... you know, they're responcible for asking for loans, that the bank would give like its fruit and then itself sell off the debt to someone else before receiving payment. Yea, its a scam... by the poor...

Next... Govt isnt nationalizing any TeleCos or telling them what level of service they have to provide... its telling them, they cant discriminate against content providers to create artificial anti-competitive practices. There is nothing being nationalized, I dont know what ass you intend to keep blowing that smoke up into.

- You site morons who let bad lending practices occur, and actually encouraged it.
- People are responsible for budgeting their own expenses, not the government bailing them out when they go bottom up.
- Nationalization could occur very easily when requirements are set above the bar that can be achieved by smaller companies, or companies upside down. We're already seeing that with banks today, so it would not surprise me if it happened with telco's.. the empirical evidence is overwhelming.
- When you take what is going on today and what caused it, it's blatantly obvious that we should not repeat the exact same practices that lead down that road.
- Honestly, take some business, finance, and government courses. Did you take all of yours under communist rule since that's where you lived during that time? It sure seems like it. Any kid with a high school education can see what net neutrality imposes and requires, and how it relates to the events that led to our current situation. Circumstance is not a justification for poor government regulations and mandates imposed on a free market.

 

[The Red]

/not an attempt to derail

Deregulation is not the problem, bad regulation is the problem.

Without those stupid regulations banks would never have offered those sub-prima mortgages and other absurd mortgages to people who can't really afford them.

None of them complained jcv, and the govt only asked for reasonable guidelines to the lenders on how to treat borrowers fairly... the problem is, the Banks gave loans to the middle class on inflated housing for which they got preferential treatment and kickbacks from the mortgage companies (and vice versa) (there are several, huge, documented scandals regarding this)...

On-top of this the Banks themselves sold the debt as if it was real capital to other lenders, hedge funds, investors and trusts. It is this selling off of miss-represented capital that crushed us, when people found out that what they bought were hidden loans that didnt materialize yet, they panicked, and here we are... not able to keep the inflated price of homes up.

The primary cause is not the poor who were given loans of little to start with... but the middle class that took out loans, on which they owe more on now, than the value of their entire homes after the housing crash. Because this lender scheme of selling off debt, caused not just an astronomical rise in home prices from what was an illusory non-existent profit sealing... but the rapid building of more homes than people could buy. Combined, these two factors are crushing us, causing defaults and homes going up for sale... which only perpetuates the cycle, saturating the market.

There are a lot of empty homes right now, that cant be bought because people with good credit cant get a big enough loan, because the lender is trashed and trying to hold on to every penny of legitimate revenue. They need the govt to act as a lender of credit -> so the lenders can continue to give home loans -> so people can buy those homes -> so the price of homes can stop falling -> so the value of the homes that people are holding on to for dear life right now stops dropping -> so they dont foreclose or default on the house- creating more houses on the market -> so the value of other peoples homes stops falling... and on, and on we go in a loop of economic self-destruction till Obama's lending for the mortgage companies kicks in...

I wish I could afford a home right now... but I'm blowing 25 Grand on Grad school, starting this August. Maybe one day... at least a condo..

At the end of this, the people to blame are the ones who inflated the original home prices, which let them set larger and larger loans that they then would unscrupulously & preferentially hand-off to lending institutions, which then secretly sold them as real capital, as if it had already materialized by being paid off. When they investors who were banking on these investments tried to run, they didnt realize they'd get dismembered in the process, since the capital was non-existent.

/not an attempt to derail

 

[w1retap]

/not an attempt to derail

At the end of this, the people to blame are the ones who inflated the original home prices, which let them set larger and larger loans that they then would unscrupulously & preferentially hand-off to lending institutions, which then secretly sold them as real capital, as if it had already materialized by being paid off. When they investors who were banking on these investments tried to run, they didnt realize they'd get dismembered in the process, since the capital was non-existent.

/not an attempt to derail

/ not an attempt to derail

And then you realize that happened because anyone and everyone qualified for loans they could not afford, then realized they could flip houses to grow rich... holy shit, why? Because regulation called for it through equal credit opportunity lending and community reinvestment act project legislation...

/ not an attempt to derail

 

[The Red]

/ not an attempt to derail

And then you realize that happened because anyone and everyone qualified for loans they could not afford, then realized they could flip houses to grow rich... holy shit, why? Because regulation called for it through equal credit opportunity lending and community reinvestment act project legislation...

/ not an attempt to derail

/not an attempt to derail

Those people tried to use capitalism to benefit themselves. Of note, is knowing that the POOR did not flip houses because there is no way they could afford to renovate in the first place... wealthy House-Flipping organizations did.

All spurred by predatory lending. And its called predatory, because the lending organizations PREYED on people... people didnt prey on the organizations.

And that is a term from the Republican administration, as well as the roughly 800 Bil Bank bailout, being the Republican administrations's ... lets not forget.

/not an attempt to derail

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

None of them complained jcv, and the govt only asked for reasonable guidelines to the lenders on how to treat borrowers fairly... the problem is, the Banks gave loans to the middle class on inflated housing for which they got preferential treatment and kickbacks from the mortgage companies (and vice versa) (there are several, huge, documented scandals regarding this)...

Why would they complain? The government took the risc trought Fanny and Freddie > regulation.

There are a lot of empty homes right now, that cant be bought because people with good credit cant get a big enough loan, because the lender is trashed and trying to hold on to every penny of legitimate revenue. They need the govt to act as a lender of credit -> so the lenders can continue to give home loans -> so people can buy those homes -> so the price of homes can stop falling -> so the value of the homes that people are holding on to for dear life right now stops dropping -> so they dont foreclose or default on the house- creating more houses on the market -> so the value of other peoples homes stops falling... and on, and on we go in a loop of economic self-destruction till Obama's lending for the mortgage companies kicks in...

No, we need the government to shut up.

They inflated the houses to a level nobody can really afford them. So we need to bubble to blow, so prices return to normal. That's what happening now. What we need is them to drop to a normal level so there is no bubble anymore. Yes, that will hurt, but after that it's over.

You suggest that the government bails out everyone. But they don't have the money for it. How they get the money? They print the money. The dollar (nor is the Euro) isn't backed by anything. Without regulation the dollar would still be redeemable into gold, and as you all know; the government can't create gold.

> Trash the Fed > they inflate, inflate, inflate. And when the bubble gets to big, it pops open and it hurts. The sooner you blow the bubble, the less it will hurt. Sooner or later you can't inflate hard enough and it will blow anyway.

> Get back to a gold standard > so the money is actually worth something.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

Go ahead and read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

And watch the first 9:44 of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

 

[qdemn7]

Without regulation the dollar would still be redeemable into gold, and as you all know; the government can't create gold.

> Get back to a gold standard > so the money is actually worth something.

Horseshit. There isn't enough gold on the planet to allow ANYONE go back to the Gold Standard, unless you want Gold to sell for $7,000 an oz or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold

In 2001, global mine production amounted to 2,604 tonnes, or 67% of total gold demand in that year. At the end of 2006, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totaled 158,000 tonnes. This can be represented by a cube with an edge length of just 20.2 meters. At current consumption rates, the supply of gold is believed to last 45 years
Let's run some numbers:

158,000 tonnes (this is a metric ton = 2,204.623 pounds) of gold is

158,000 x 2,204.623 = 348,330,434 TROY pounds

348,330,434 TROY pounds x 12 TROY oz per pound = 4,179,965,208 troy oz of gold

Let's round it up to 4.2 billion troy oz. So that is the total amount of gold that has ever been mined. There is no way to even begin to account for the gold that has been lost, worn away in usage, and so on, so I'm just going to use that number.

The hard part is deciding the worth of everything in existence. All land, building structures, vehicles, etc, etc, etc. I have seen numbers banded about from anywhere from 5-60 trillion USD. So take a median and say $30 trillion USD.

So... $30,000,000,000,000 divided by 4,200,000,000 = $7,142.86 oz of gold.

Think about what that price would do to everything. No more gold jewelry. No more gold plated electrical contacts, no more gold used in anything not supremely critical to the economy. And the economy can't grow unless more gold is discovered. That is the reason we went off the Gold Standard in the first place.

BTW, there have been no major mention of vast gold reserves found. So another 7 years is a total of 18,228 tonnes of gold.

You want to go back to the Gold Standard at $20 an oz? Then we need to find about 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 metric tons of gold, and the only place that can possibly be found is the asteroid belt, and we do not have the technology to mine the belt.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

Seriously dude...

If there isn't enough of something, it becomes worth more. If "there isn't enough money" then the money becomes worth more.

In the current situation the Fed creates money out of thin air. More of x > x becomes worth less. More money > money is worth less = inflation. So they create more money and the money in your pocket that's worth X*$1 today is worth X*$0,95 next year. So in fact, inflation is some kind of tax. Even Keynes said said that inflation is a sneaky way for the government to take from their citizens.

 

[The Red]

Why would they complain? The government took the risc trought Fanny and Freddie > regulation.



No, we need the government to shut up.

They inflated the houses to a level nobody can really afford them. So we need to bubble to blow, so prices return to normal. That's what happening now. What we need is them to drop to a normal level so there is no bubble anymore. Yes, that will hurt, but after that it's over.

You suggest that the government bails out everyone. But they don't have the money for it. How they get the money? They print the money. The dollar (nor is the Euro) isn't backed by anything. Without regulation the dollar would still be redeemable into gold, and as you all know; the government can't create gold.

> Trash the Fed > they inflate, inflate, inflate. And when the bubble gets to big, it pops open and it hurts. The sooner you blow the bubble, the less it will hurt. Sooner or later you can't inflate hard enough and it will blow anyway.

> Get back to a gold standard > so the money is actually worth something.

You make a very agreeable argument. Except for the gold standard part, there isnt enough, and people would start tearing the earth apart for it, causing massive loss of life and ecological devastation, creating a new "OIL" to go to war for, that would be better than oil for wealth aggregation... if was allowed to occur. Just look at diamonds, and imagine a global scale version of the hell they have created in Africa.

I would have personally liked the lenders and Banks to fail, just like dot-coms did during the bubble burst. The problem with what I like, and what I know, though, is that I know the scale of suffering for the dot-com burst was short-lived and affected few.

Where as, a nationwide banking failure, because there are so few and due to the severity of the downturn already having killed off the small banks while the big whales are dying more slowly... it would be devastating beyond anything either of us could imagine. We're talking depression era. A run on all banks, nobody wanting stocks, no loans, insane food prices, starvation, abject poverty and return of diseases that we could no longer afford to treat.. the degeneration of the entire nation into a slump only another massive war could bring it out of.

In other words, too many banks and lenders would fail if allowed to, since unlike the dot-coms or Retail chains, they are all linked together, and linked to every part of American finance. When the Banks would fail, unlike a Retail store, there would be nobody to pick up where they left off... if China could afford it, as a nation, they might try, but we as Americans would be forced to default on a massive amount of debt we owe to china, plunging their economy along with ours, and further ensuring ours cant rise because of how dependent we are on their goods.

To sum it up, we're preventing a massive, global, chain reaction of hurt that would start with us and end in high incentives for economy-saving global warfare.

-------------------------

I feel we have gone too far in the direction of thread derailment. So I must comment that measures like Net Neutrality ensure that in such global downturns, the situations is not spread to the Net, where desperate Telecoms would do anything and everything you could imagine to curb competition, eliminate choice, and regulate content. Some would argue they needed it for their survival, while refusing to change themselves, and some not being able to without losing investors who bought-in to the assumption of the company having sustained Market Domination.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

Okay, no gold standard as far as you are concerned, but we should still get rid of the central banks. They inflate, inflate, inflate. They artificially create economic growth.

Every individual has to pay back his/her debt at some point. The government doesn't... doesn't make sense.

You can stimulate when the economy is in a dip, but then you have to pay back the debt caused by the stimuli in the economic better times... and that's often forgotten...

 

[The Red]

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the specter of the govt trying to make money off of the bailouts we're discussing. The govt made taxpayers a lot of money bailing out the Airlines post-9/11, and I presume it was used as a major model for the current bailouts.

It would not surprise me if the govt saw Net Neutrality as a means to ensure future tax collection from local online businesses... since a big California company, could not pay to have better treatment of its content than a medium Nebraska company... each paying their local taxes. Net Neutrality actually ensures that the West and East coast Internet Content providers / creators, cannot force out smaller, nationwide, content providers.

Net Neutrality gives the wrong impression with its name, that it wants Neutral Internet Service, I think. It would be better named if it stated Net Content Neutrality. Which people would understand and not be as up-in-arms about.

 

[The Red]

Okay, no gold standard as far as you are concerned, but we should still get rid of the central banks. They inflate, inflate, inflate. They artificially create economic growth.

Every individual has to pay back his/her debt at some point. The government doesn't... doesn't make sense.

You can stimulate when the economy is in a dip, but then you have to pay back the debt caused by the stimuli in the economic better times... and that's often forgotten...

You are correct, the inflation is caused by the Govt's lender bank. But the thing is, that bank is actually private, and not nationalized. So the amount of control they have over it, is more limited than you'd imagine.

As for solutions to the problem, you can read entire books worth on politicalcrossfire,com ... the issue has been debated to death and the suggestions are so numerous, I couldn't begin to explore them. It is a rough issue, to say the least.

 

[w1retap]

h_o_l_y_s_h_i_t ... this is absolutely hilarious. A person claiming capitalism is the problem is lecturing us about capitalism.. hahaha.. it doesn't get any more ironic than that. I guess that Lenin education really did a number. People use capitalism to benefit their financial status and drive the economy forward... that's the point. However, it's the government which created the poor lending practices through their regulations which forced private lending institutions to make credit more easily obtainable. It enabled the average middle class citizen to take out millions of dollars in lines of credit to flip those houses.. it allowed people with zero credit and no job to go get that $200,000 home or condo, it allowed and encouraged large sums of those packaged lines of credit/loans to be purchased by other institutions that would then sell them for a higher price. The bubble kept growing which led to it's ultimate burst which we're in today. Again, it's all blatantly obvious. Go ahead and read the legislation and you might learn a thing or two. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-100.html

If you're going to argue otherwise and site us to the people who were the enablers as a valid source, sorry, we know better than that. You might as well just give us Barney Frank as a source.. after all, he was the one who blocked all the legislation reform that would have reversed the problems we're experiencing now.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

You are correct, the inflation is caused by the Govt's lender bank. But the thing is, that bank is actually private, and not nationalized. So the amount of control they have over it, is more limited than you'd imagine.

As for solutions to the problem, you can read entire books worth on politicalcrossfire,com ... the issue has been debated to death and the suggestions are so numerous, I couldn't begin to explore them. It is a rough issue, to say the least.

Well, guess what? They create money, counterfeit in fact, and since that's forbidden it wouldn't be that hard to get rid of the Fed.

 

[Gorankar]

Elvis has left the building, and taken the on topic posts with him.

 

[The Red]

h_o_l_y_s_h_i_t ... this is absolutely hilarious. A person claiming capitalism is the problem is lecturing us about capitalism.. hahaha.. it doesn't get any more ironic than that. I guess that Lenin education really did a number. People use capitalism to benefit their financial status and drive the economy forward... that's the point. However, it's the government which created the poor lending practices through their regulations which forced private lending institutions to make credit more easily obtainable. It enabled the average middle class citizen to take out millions of dollars in lines of credit to flip those houses.. it allowed people with zero credit and no job to go get that $200,000 home or condo, it allowed and encouraged large sums of those packaged lines of credit/loans to be purchased by other institutions that would then sell them for a higher price. The bubble kept growing which led to it's ultimate burst which we're in today. Again, it's all blatantly obvious. Go ahead and read the legislation and you might learn a thing or two. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-100.html

If you're going to argue otherwise and site us to the people who were the enablers as a valid source, sorry, we know better than that. You might as well just give us Barney Frank as a source.. after all, he was the one who blocked all the legislation reform that would have reversed the problems we're experiencing now.

Ok, I've had enough, you're too thick, so I'll leave you with this.

#1: Every time you try to build straw-men and assail me regarding my background that you like to fantasize about it, you show just how weak of a position you hold that you would need to do that.

What are you? what do you do? where were you educated and how far did you get? have you ever voted anything other than neo-con? - are there reasons you dont speak about it and call others elitist?

#2: The Govt, did not create this economic crash. In fact, it blindsided everyone outside of the lenders who cut-and-ran, because there was no transparency within the markets to begin with. Govt would require transparency if they were to even attempt to govern. Unless you're prepared to argue that GW intended the market to crash, you have no case.

#3: The average middle-class citizen that you're arguing was enabled by the Govt to take out his $200,000 loan, WAS NOT, the companies that gave loans, didnt discriminate, the Govt lending guidelines applied only to POOR and First Time Home Owners. I'm prepared to hear your argue where the responsibility lies with how a loan is calculated, in Govt stating you cant loan to ppl of certain middle class and defining rules of how credible someone has to be to receive a loan, or WITH THE COMPANY THAT CHOOSES TO DO SO. You're seeking for the Govt to ENFORCE stricter lending guidelines where these lenders had NONE before. Thats right.

#4: Deregulated capitalism has failed you, according to the 2 TOP (Greenspan & Bernanke) people in the nation in charge of the Federal Reserve, the Chairmen (These so-called enablers of yours did not serve this policy, and I'm prepared to hear your argument for why possibly they would let this happen, both put in power by republicans.).

Greenspan, btw, had your self-regulation market position, of self-governance, and he RETRACTED himself in front of congress... saying he was wrong to presume the market could regulate itself. "Invisible hand" quotes abound. You're arguing for further de-regulation, against the National Fiscal Policy go-to guy for HOW many presidents? (Appointed by Regan in 1987', and leaving during Bush JR. (2006)) I dont need to be elitist, he trumps us both. The end. Go blame the poor or some other minority for everything else.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

Those banks gave those mortgages because the government forced them to do so. <<<<<< REGULATION

 

[w1retap]

Ok, I've had enough, you're too thick, so I'll leave you with this.

#1: Every time you try to build straw-men and assail me regarding my background that you like to fantasize about it, you show just how weak of a position you hold that you would need to do that.

What are you? what do you do? where were you educated and how far did you get? have you ever voted anything other than neo-con? - are there reasons you dont speak about it and call others elitist?

#2: The Govt, did not create this economic crash. In fact, it blindsided everyone outside of the lenders who cut-and-ran, because there was no transparency within the markets to begin with. Govt would require transparency if they were to even attempt to govern. Unless you're prepared to argue that GW intended the market to crash, you have no case.

#3: The average middle-class citizen that you're arguing was enabled by the Govt to take out his $200,000 loan, WAS NOT, the companies that gave loans, didnt discriminate, the Govt lending guidelines applied only to POOR and First Time Home Owners. I'm prepared to hear your argue where the responsibility lies with how a loan is calculated, in Govt stating you cant loan to ppl of certain middle class and defining rules of how credible someone has to be to receive a loan, or WITH THE COMPANY THAT CHOOSES TO DO SO. You're seeking for the Govt to ENFORCE stricter lending guidelines where these lenders had NONE before. Thats right.

#4: Deregulated capitalism has failed you, according to the 2 TOP (Greenspan & Bernanke) people in the nation in charge of the Federal Reserve, the Chairmen (These so-called enablers of yours did not serve this policy, and I'm prepared to hear your argument for why possibly they would let this happen, both put in power by republicans.).

Greenspan, btw, had your self-regulation market position, of self-governance, and he RETRACTED himself in front of congress... saying he was wrong to presume the market could regulate itself. "Invisible hand" quotes abound. You're arguing for further de-regulation, against the National Fiscal Policy go-to guy for HOW many presidents? (Appointed by Regan in 1987', and leaving during Bush JR. (2006)) I dont need to be elitist, he trumps us both. The end. Go blame the poor or some other minority for everything else.

1 - My standards for casting a vote go to the candidate that coincide most closely representing the values of the Constitution. I don't just vote based on labels.. I research every candidate I vote for.. everything down to city council and school board members.. and everything as high up as the US President. If it's a lower local government official, I go based off of their prior experience and policy as it relates to my community. I could care less if they're a "democrat" or "republican". The same goes for upper level government. So far in my voting history in national elections for presidents and senator/house members it's hard finding any candidate that represents the views that are in the best interest of the country in relation to the US Constitution.

Now what am I and what do I do? I'm an American.. I am a few credits away from graduating with a Computer and Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Michigan, I have worked in the nuclear energy sector full time for the past 4 years, I have other part time jobs for local tech related contracts for IT administration and networking, and I have a several week per year contracted job which I can't disclose. I enjoy vacations along Lake Superior and I like driving turbocharged vehicles. My favorite video game is Quake 3: Rocket Arena and I enjoy building computers in my spare time. What else would you like to know?

2 & 3 - I take it you didn't even read the regulatory legislation directly affecting the current economic status... that's fine, ignorance is bliss.

4. We haven't had deregulated capitalism.. we've had stricter and stricter controls put on the markets with looser and looser credit lending clauses that were out of the control of the private institutions... they were federally mandated. Credit lending, housing acts, cap & trade, equal employment, toilet tank legislation, light bulb regulation, fuel economy standards, safety standards, metallurgy standards, paint standards, drilling bans, ban this ban that, regulate this regulate that...and I could list about 7000 more off the top of my head. And I don't discriminate just because someone worked in whatever administration.. I don't care. If they were a bureaucrat and part of the problem, I have no sympathy for them. As far as fiscal policy goes, it seems we'd rather have some of the old shitty guys back, because so far Obama has quadrupled down Bush's debt in about a month and a half.. astonishing, rofl.

 

[thunderstruck!]

2 & 3 - I take it you didn't even read the regulatory legislation directly affecting the current economic status... that's fine, ignorance is bliss.

This is oversimplifying the issue by leaps and bounds. You act as if the regulatory legislation was the absolute root cause of this entire financial crisis but you aren't willing to see the big picture. This legislation doesn't explain why financial institutions were allowed to pile on huge amounts of debt and take on obligations without raising a reasonable amount of capital to reflect their investments. All those mortgages that were given during that period were divvied up into derivatives and sold by the masses. To top it off, insurance companies were ready and willing to cover those obligations as if they would never have to pay them or see a loss. The fact that financial institutions that we depend on were allowed to pile on so much debt in such creative ways while masking it the whole time for the only motive of short term profit is illustrative of the regulatory environment that was in place which allowed this to happen. Clearly, lack of regulation was not the problem. It was rather, the enabler.

Lack of transparency simply led to the obfuscation of the problem and continues to be the concern that drives uncertainty in these times. One of the banks' most pressing problems is that they are unwilling to fully come to terms and indicate what their toxic assets are worth. This obfuscation just simply leads to more "surprising" losses each quarter.

 

[w1retap]

This is oversimplifying the issue by leaps and bounds. You act as if the regulatory legislation was the absolute root cause of this entire financial crisis but you aren't willing to see the big picture. This legislation doesn't explain why financial institutions were allowed to pile on huge amounts of debt and take on obligations without raising a reasonable amount of capital to reflect their investments. All those mortgages that were given during that period were divvied up into derivatives and sold by the masses. To top it off, insurance companies were ready and willing to cover those obligations as if they would never have to pay them or see a loss. The fact that financial institutions that we depend on were allowed to pile on so much debt in such creative ways while masking it the whole time for the only motive of short term profit is illustrative of the regulatory environment that was in place which allowed this to happen. Clearly, lack of regulation was not the problem. It was rather, the enabler.

Lack of transparency simply led to the obfuscation of the problem and continues to be the concern that drives uncertainty in these times. One of the banks' most pressing problems is that they are unwilling to fully come to terms and indicate what their toxic assets are worth. This obfuscation just simply leads to more "surprising" losses each quarter.

Yes it does.. it makes perfect sense. It was because they were taking those bad loans/mortgages and selling them at profits time and time again. Here's a nice video to illustrate..
http://vimeo.com/3261363?pg=embed&sec=&hd=1

 

[thunderstruck!]

Yes it does.. it makes perfect sense. It was because they were taking those bad loans/mortgages and selling them at profits time and time again. Here's a nice video to illustrate..
http://vimeo.com/3261363?pg=embed&sec=&hd=1

My point is nobody forced these companies to take those mortgages and create bogus financial instruments to stuff them in and sell them as quickly as possible, as many times over. Nobody forced them to dress up shit into gold and there certainly weren't any government regulators who created the credit swaps or forced companies to leverage themselves more than 30:1. That's just not smart business.

 

[w1retap]

lol, it doesn't matter.. when the regulation puts the market in that situation, it's the only way they can make their money back since nobody is making their payments. They just pass the buck to the next..