Why does Obama make liberals rage so hard?

[Rothbardian]

the SEC failed to uncover Madoff's ponzi scheme, better get rid of all financial regulations and let the free market policve itself./

No amount of regulations has ever stopped what it has intended, therefore we find ourselves in ever more regulation and when something happens promised even more regulation. Ad infinitum. Regulations instituted by monopolies outside market mechanisms will never work precisely because of human nature. Let the market regulate itself, it does a wonderful job without moral hazard interference.

Cue Levin's insidious voice:

We need MORE regulations. We need MORE bureaurocracy. We need MORE Government. We need MORE monopolies. We need MORE moral hazard. Cuz' I am the most Statist of all the Statists you big dope, now get off the internet!

(Off-topic, this is hilarious mind you)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GCytsKBSoU

Start at 1:35

[Kyreth]

What's the incentive even if you say is so? Those who work at the SEC have their jobs regardless of their performance. I think it's ludicrous to believe people are looking out for our best interests. Imagine you had a job where you knew you were 100% safe and you had an extortion ring setup where money always flowed in no matter what kind of job you did. Would you really care about the service you provided?

Even if you did, do you think the majority of the people would? Besides, people shouldn't be snooping into my financial records unless I give express permission.

The whole system makes no sense. It's as if people expect their rulers to be both benevolent and omniscient.

I know the concept of "doing the right thing" and "government" might not mix much in your worldview, but there are folks that actually believe in that sorta thing. Not nearly enough though.

And as far as snooping into your financial records? I believe when you're manipulating the flow of billions of dollars of wealth, people really SHOULD know it's there and where it's going. Or else we end up with more Ponzi schemes and fraud in general. The concept that a corporation or financial institution should have the same expectations of privacy as a citizen is foolish- the lower the level of transparency or the larger the amount of pooled wealth, the higher the rate of corruption that ends up being hidden from the public.

Having blinders on while trying to direct the flow of commerce is idiocy. Both for attempts to regulate it or to prevent the abuse of legitimate businesses by criminals. Should Joe Citizen be required to display every transaction to the world? No. But when Joe Citizen is risking the collective assets of thousands of other citizens, whether he's defrauding them directly, or obfuscating the actual level of risk in financial double-speak, the public has a right to know, in the form of the government and in a direct manner to the individual.

Of course, if banks and the like had been honest, very few people would have been investing piles of money in financial packages "supported" by shitty super-high-risk mortgages and loans. Losing the desire to build stable and sensible investments vs. maximized short-term profits on whatever flimsy paper bubble you can pass as "investment opportunities" has been poison for the markets.

[Solefald]

audit the fed, but don't you dare examine my hedge fund!!!

[Rothbardian]

audit the fed, but don't you dare examine my hedge fund!!!

The Federal Reserve is a creation of the Government and not an individual. Ready for the next fallacy.

[Kyreth]

The Federal Reserve is a creation of the Government and not an individual. Ready for the next fallacy.

Banks and most financial institutions are not an individual, either- and I believe all of them deserve equal scrutiny under the law. That the government does not I find offensive and as equally if not more required than any other institution as it supposedly holds sway over all of us.

(edit note: I know that a corporation effectively is considered an individual for the purposes of responsibility, but I'm talking reality here. Precious few corporations are a company of one person.)

Total reliance on free market forces would result in a system that conglomerates itself into the largest portions possible to protect it's own (short-term) interests and without the ability to over-ride that when it becomes toxic to the market. Too much regulation is equally choking, but there has to be a shifting balance between the two that would be healthier than gross deregulation or the nigh-infinite layers of regulatory agencies that yield diminishing returns.

Big isn't better, whether it's in pooling billions of dollars in assets into a bank or company, government trying to regulate it with a host of different offices, or in the inevitable and regular attempts by large companies to stifle innovation and competition by illegal means. All three need trimming, with a scalpel if not the legal equivalent of an axe.

[Beckwin]

austrians make doomsday predictions daily; them getting it "right" is equivalent to a stopped clock being right twice a day.

[Beckwin]

No amount of regulations has ever stopped what it has intended

Candadian banking regulations insulated their financial system. ruh-roh

[Cadsuane]

This guy's got a new set of buzzwords every other week.

[Plow]

The hatred for Clinton around here is insane really, not just in the mind-boggling sense, but it's just... fucking crazy, the way people think about it.


It's seriously like a mirror image of how all the ridiculous retarded republicans around here(Kansas) are. You try to say "Clinton was really pretty reasonable" and they'll tell you he was Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Hitler all rolled into one hyper-communist-freedom-family-and-life-hating package.

*cough*

brb registering repub

I'm in.

[Kuya]

I did not read the last page. Summary please?

[Rhinox]

No. I had to sit and read that garbage now you do as well.

[Kuya]

No way i'm reading all of that unless there's something valuable in it.

[archibaldcrane]

http://images.bluegartr.com/forum/cu...tar64013_1.gif
All you need to know.

Ok fine, quote for fun:

Well I'm only 23, but I've been an Austro-Libertarian for years and years. When I say "we", it is specifying Austrians.

[Cephius]

Austrain 23 year olds: Knowing better than the government since 1945

[willriker]

i learned all i needed to know in kindegarden, brb nap time

[kareface]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs

This is going to be a preview of whats to come. And Detroit is all ready looks like nuclear fallout.

Jesus dude, you really don't know anything about what you're talking about. It's almost impossible for things to get that bad now-a-days thanks to China, oil and our GDP. China's economy is directly linked with ours, if their GDP doesn't expand at a steady rate each year they're likely to fall into a depression. They aren't loaning us all this money because we're the bestest buddies ever. They are doing so to keep their economy afloat. The dollar is also still the world reserve currency and if you buy or sell oil, it still must be done in dollars. The euro is catching up, but the dollar still holds the large majority of the market share. Lastly our GDP is the highest of any country in the world by a large margin. Those 3 factors give the US a lot more flexibility when it comes to financial stability and while we can still be party to economic instability, we will never get to the point you are implying.

[Bingbong]

the SEC failed to uncover Madoff's ponzi scheme, better get rid of all financial regulations and let the free market policve itself./

Wasn't the scheme uncovered when the free-market (aka: people with money who wanted to invest) came looking for their money, and he didn't have any of it?

Just sayin'.