2013-03-31, 02:41 | Link #722 |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Oh no, that's not the point. Instead, they possess enough power to circumvent the law, such that when they break the law -- they are immune to it. That's the problem here.
__________________
|
2013-03-31, 04:33 | Link #723 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have no problem with people making money. I DO have problem with people breaking laws and getting away with it because they have money. Two situations happen now: 1. The people who have money control so much of the economy that they can't be jailed or fired. So they are now literally immune to laws that the common people follow. 2. The few times they get slapped on the wrist, the only thing they get is a fine. And in ALL cases, the fine is a mere fraction of the profits the illegal activity actually gave them. So it is barely a fine but just a bribe to the government. "We are all equal under the law" is the social contract of a civilised society. But the wealthiest people are now blatantly ignoring that, rather than just ignoring it secretly.
__________________
|
||
2013-03-31, 05:54 | Link #724 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I agree with him partially, because whatever goods that generate money for others to buy stuff should circulate around the society, not be consolidated in the hands of a few. But then again, if rules are made for everything to be equally distributed, then there is no incentive to make anything at all. Just reusing and rehashing everything - then the only kind of Twinkies we get on the market will be banana cream.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 06:15 | Link #725 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I have no problem in people generating goods. But banks as they stand today do not generate goods.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 06:52 | Link #726 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The problem is the concept of productivity being applied to such institutions when the concept of expenditure should be used instead - the emphasis should be on cost savings not profits per item in these cases. It is logic and math when it comes to applications like this. There needs to be a greater emphasis on these subjects in all those Biz Mgmt schools around the world, not just the lame teaching of concept after concept that it dilutes the students' ability to do independent problem solving.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 07:05 | Link #727 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
"Profit per item", in your own words, implies that banks are better off selling things that are as worthless as possible, in as high a price as possible. As you say, that's not how banks are suppose to function. It doesn't aid the economy in any way, it just siphons wealth to the bankers themselves. We end up with a property crash, and bankers keep their bonuses by deducting fees from the government bailouts.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 07:06 | Link #728 | |
Radical Dreamer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-03-31, 07:36 | Link #729 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Laziness to do personal financial management and greed for insane returns should be a crime punishable by neutering : at least they don't pass on their recessive genes of such to their descendants. [/sarcasm]
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 08:22 | Link #730 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
The banks paid the rating agencies to pretend the risky investments are actually safe investments, then sell them to ordinary investors who just want a steady income. There is NO WAY you can blame the likes of Iceland for being "greedy". No one told them they were doing anything dangerous. In short, you are wrong. There is nearly NO MARKET for risky derivatives. Most investors only buy Triple A. So banks take the worthless risky investments, change the label via rating agencies, then defraud the innocent investors with it. And then they get rewarded with bonuses and golden parachutes after the government bailed them out, using the bail out money for their final payout. Please. Don't even try to pin it on investors making risky bets when no one does that. Investors weren't trying to buy risky bets, while banks aren't buying risky bets either because they resell at a profit to them as soon as possible.
__________________
Last edited by Vallen Chaos Valiant; 2013-03-31 at 09:33. |
|
2013-03-31, 11:36 | Link #731 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as a non-risky investment. Some are risker than others, but even investing in U.S. government bonds have "a risk"
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 12:20 | Link #732 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Are people who live in Cyprus risking their money by having a savings account? No. They LIVE there, where else are they suppose to put their money? Maybe people of Cyprus should have been told that the entire population should have banked elsewhere, instead of having their saving locked to 300 Euro withdrawals per day. But how were they suppose to do that?
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 13:16 | Link #733 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Most people aren't capable of handling complicated financial decisions. Financial institutions have a responsibility to handle their clients capital with care given the information advantage they have.
Deregulation over a long period created a situation where safe investing wasn't competitive anymore, and market consolidations mixed savings, insurance and more risky investment sectors in to large financial conglomerates. Derivatives and other financial instruments made markets more efficient and helped fuel growth. It's somewhat similar on a conceptual level to overclocking. The financial system became faster and more efficient but at the price of reduced stability. Add in a bunch of irresponsible and unscrupulous individuals, who ignored even the basic safety rules of agreements like Basel, in search of ever increasing returns and you have a recipe for trouble. I don't think it's fair for the most part to put the responsibility with individuals who get seduced by higher returns on savings or lower borrowing costs. The issue was on the representative level where legislation concerning monitoring and law enforcement in the financial sector couldn't keep up with the increased freedom of the financials (not to mention actively discouraged by lobbying). |
2013-03-31, 13:21 | Link #734 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Either that or they are simply moving their money to somewhere to avoid taxes. The problem seems that Cyprus doesn't have a deposit insurance scheme that protects the monies of the savers. Either that or they don't have a proper required reserve ratio to maintain equity.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-31, 13:49 | Link #735 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-03-31, 14:20 | Link #736 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
The deposit insurance scheme is not designed to be used; it is created to give a false sense of security. The idea is that its very existence prevents a bank run. And as long as there is no bank run there is no need for paying out the deposit insurance.
Cyprus showed what happens when people really ask for their money; capital controls.
__________________
|
2013-03-31, 15:32 | Link #737 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Capital controls are a more powerful tool that can be used when the entire financial sector (either at country or international level) is at risk. |
|
2013-04-11, 19:15 | Link #738 | |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Rand Paul Goes to Howard
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/op...to-howard.html Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-04-19, 06:51 | Link #739 | |||
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh the Irony. The vote on the universal background checks was voted down, and someone decided to voice out against it. That results in being subject to a background check. So... there's a background check on the First Amendment, but not the Second? If it weren't for the Filibuster -- this measure passes easily. So, tossing this gun debate aside... It is ridiculous overall for the Senate to need 60 votes (rather than say 51) to pass anything. There was actually a chance to reform the abuse of the filibuster; but no, Harry Reid decided to blow it earlier this year. So, y'know what? This mess is his fault. It is really stupid when 90% of Americans supported this; and yet the Senate went against it. For shame, indeed. Shame!
__________________
|
|||
|
|