U.S. Politics Thread

[willx]

^ Yes, people that make money, make things or facilitate transactions are all evil.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by willx

^ Yes, people that make money, make things or facilitate transactions are all evil.

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.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by willx

^ Yes, people that make money, make things or facilitate transactions are all evil.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

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.

This.

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.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

^ Yes, people that make money, make things or facilitate transactions are all evil.

Lenin agrees with you only if you do all of that and not benefit the state.

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.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Lenin agrees with you only if you do all of that and not benefit the state.

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.

Makes sense... if you actual MAKE anything. Which leads to 1. Banking doesn't induce manufacturing unless you are in China and 2. Banking itself manufactures nothing.

I have no problem in people generating goods. But banks as they stand today do not generate goods.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Makes sense... if you actual MAKE anything. Which leads to 1. Banking doesn't induce manufacturing unless you are in China and 2. Banking itself manufactures nothing.

I have no problem in people generating goods. But banks as they stand today do not generate goods.

Banking is a necessary institution because it administrative work keeps things in check. Logistics makes nothing too, but it is necessary to transport things from one place to another.

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.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Banking is a necessary institution because it administrative work keeps things in check. Logistics makes nothing too, but it is necessary to transport things from one place to another.

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.

Yeah, the issue is when banks start "producing" things to sell, we end up with derivatives and sub-prime mortgages backed black magic. When banks pretend they are making things, thus generate fake value that eventually was found to be worthless.

"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.

[lordblazer]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

This.

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.

Hey, it just means we are returning to a norm in human history. Get rich and you too can be considered human. Because at this point I do indeed feel as if the wealthy don't even look at us as human beings if we aren't netting a certain amount of income.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yeah, the issue is when banks start "producing" things to sell, we end up with derivatives and sub-prime mortgages backed black magic. When banks pretend they are making things, thus generate fake value that eventually was found to be worthless.

"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.

I think the root of the problem are people who are too lazy to do their own financial management, and too greedy to accept anything less than 10 times the rate of inflation as their rate of return. They are the ones who create a market for all these risky derivatives and use their savings to force the banks to cater to their stupidity.

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]

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think the root of the problem are people who are too lazy to do their own financial management, and too greedy to accept anything less than 10 times the rate of inflation as their rate of return. They are the ones who create a market for all these risky derivatives and use their savings to force the banks to cater to their stupidity.

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]

That doesn't add up. Many people who want to invest, like the Icelandic government, aren't after high returns for high risk. That's why they bought triple A rated instruments.

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.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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.

Are you kidding me? Are you serious? For example, was depositing money in banks in Cyprus safe? Are you just allowed to rely on people to tell you what is safe or not? Yeah, S&P screwed up (http://business.financialpost.com/20...investigation/) but you can't push all the blame on someone else. Every single investment requires personal and professional guidance and evaluation of risk.

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"

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by willx

Are you kidding me? Are you serious? For example, was depositing money in banks in Cyprus safe? Are you just allowed to rely on people to tell you what is safe or not? Yeah, S&P screwed up (http://business.financialpost.com/20...investigation/) but you can't push all the blame on someone else. Every single investment requires personal and professional guidance and evaluation of risk.

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"

Are rich Russians using Cyprus as a tax haven risking their money? Yes.

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?

[Bri]

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).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

Are you kidding me? Are you serious? For example, was depositing money in banks in Cyprus safe? Are you just allowed to rely on people to tell you what is safe or not? Yeah, S&P screwed up (http://business.financialpost.com/20...investigation/) but you can't push all the blame on someone else. Every single investment requires personal and professional guidance and evaluation of risk.

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"

I think they just saw the interest rate and go "buy that bond!".

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.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think they just saw the interest rate and go "buy that bond!".

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.

The Cypriot government insures deposits up to 100k. However an insurance of that level is still hard to meet with a banking sector holding deposits that amount to eight times the country’s GDP. These banks got in trouble by bad loans to Greece. The main problem for Cyrpus is that these banks are not "too big to fail" to worry the rest of Europe, so they wont be rescued with only tax payers money. Hence depositors with more than 100k exposed are going to lose a lot of money from the haircuts. Not to mention a tax heaven won't attract the cleanest of money.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

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.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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.

It's a tool for when individual banks are at risk. The UK and the Netherlands did just that during the Icesave dispute, they guaranteed deposits up until the insured amount when Landsbanki collapsed. The deposit insurance scheme causes problems when an economy is small in comparison it's banks.

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.

[ganbaru]

Rand Paul Goes to Howard
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/op...to-howard.html

The Republican Party is struggling with its future. Will it be a regional, Congressional party fighting a last-gasp battle for a shrinking base in a David and Goliath war against ominously expanding federal government? Or will it become a national, presidential party capable of adapting to a new American reality of diversity and expression in which the government serves an essential function in regulating public safety, providing a safety net and serving as a safeguard against discrimination?

[Kyuu]

After Senate collapse, a background check for speaking out, but not for buying a gun

“Shame on you!” shouted an emotional Lori Haas from the Senate gallery after 100 of the world’s most powerful men and women refused to impose any new restrictions on gun ownership. Even background checks went down to defeat.

She and Patricia Maisch — who also shouted “Shame on you” but is better known as the hero who knocked a high-capacity magazine out of Loughner’s hands before he could kill more people in Tucson — were escorted out of the Senate gallery by Capitol Police.

“They detained us for about an hour and a half,” said Haas, 55, who lives in Richmond.

They had to turn over their IDs and wait. For what?

A background check.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...wpmk=MK0000202

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!

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

It is really stupid when 90% of Americans supported this; and yet the Senate went against it. For shame, indeed. Shame!

Don't put all the blame on the Senate. The House shot it down too, and by a larger margin. They clearly don't give two shits what the country actually wants or needs.