Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, voting for the guy who wants no regulation on banks is better? Getting rid of the central bank, a fixture of the economic system of every first world economy, is viewed by almost all mainstream economists as a stupid idea.
In terms of the bailouts, nobody said they would save the economy. They said they would help. The data proves they did. Unless you have some magic data that says otherwise, and you can provide it, then you should probably not be putting forward such opinions.
Unless you're looking to have someone pull a kid out of a lady, you should probably skip over what that old man has to say.
"Big government" candidates aren't the problem. Canada, for instance, has more social programs, has a stronger national bank and more real estate regulations. Their economy didn't bubble to the degree that the US did and their real estate markets are fine. They had more regulation.
Once upon a time, people who have studied economic history know this, there were no banking regulations. Then people discovered that banks have the ability to tank an economy by taking excessive risks. Then governments started regulating banks to stop them from taking excessive risks. If Mr. Pauls stupid ideas worked, there wouldn't have been bank regulations in the first place.
Ron Paul's ideas largely only sound good to people who are clueless. That's why he was so pathetic in the Republican primaries.
We had regulation on the bank, it was the same "leaders" you are so proud of removed it. The regulation is call "Glass-Steagall Act" or the Banking Act of 1933. What this is make it illegal for bank to gamble with the deposit money.
Banking was a boring business. The only source of revenue is loan. Then it was removed and banking can "invest" the money. Which lead to financial crisis.
What Dr Paul propose is let Free Market regulate the banking or other products. Government regulation does not work. Just look at the SEC. Does it stop anything? It does nothing but provide more and more regulation and give a false sense of security.
We had regulation on the bank, it was the same "leaders" you are so proud of removed it. The regulation is call "Glass-Steagall Act" or the Banking Act of 1933. What this is make it illegal for bank to gamble with the deposit money.
Banking was a boring business. The only source of revenue is loan. Then it was removed and banking can "invest" the money. Which lead to financial crisis.
What Dr Paul propose is let Free Market regulate the banking or other products. Government regulation does not work. Just look at the SEC. Does it stop anything? It does nothing but provide more and more regulation and give a false sense of security.
While I do believe Dr. Paul voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, I subscribe to the camp that believes Glass-Steagall wouldn't have made a darn bit of difference. For the record, Canda, who seems to have escaped the worst of the financial problems the rest of the industrial world faced/faces, hasn't had anything like a Glass-Steagall in what, 20 years? Who was it that said Canada's banking industry was more regulated again?
What we had was both commercial AND investment banks holding large amounts of mortgage backed securities (perfectly legal under Glass-Steagall) when the housing bubble burst. It didn't matter if they would have been stand-alone (Glass-Steagall) or tied together (no Glass-Steagall). They all had them. Again, for the record, I do believe a high percentage, if not most, of the banks that failed during the depression of the 30's, were stand-alone banks as there just wasn't as many banks big enough to be involved in both commercial and investment banking.
[quote=HappyTexan;24857710]Oh yeah..the 100 years of Fed Reserve existence has done us a world of good.
The dollar has lost near 100% of it's value in those 100 years \
I have no idea whatsoever why some taxpayers trust the Federal Reserve at all. It is a private business that operates in secrecy, has no checks and balances, has no US Government Official overseeing it, provides no Accounting Statements to the US Government or the taxpayers regardless of the fact that it is the taxpayers' money that it absolutely controls, allocates, and uses and whatever the hich else it wants to do with it. I wouldn't dream of depositing my money into a bank or credit union where I received no statements, therefore no way I could check how, when and where I was spending and depositing my funds, the interest rates the bank was paying me, and be able to withdraw all my money at any time. I would feel safer putting it in the freezer or buried in the backyard and account for it on my own.
While I do believe Dr. Paul voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, I subscribe to the camp that believes Glass-Steagall wouldn't have made a darn bit of difference. For the record, Canda, who seems to have escaped the worst of the financial problems the rest of the industrial world faced/faces, hasn't had anything like a Glass-Steagall in what, 20 years? Who was it that said Canada's banking industry was more regulated again?
What we had was both commercial AND investment banks holding large amounts of mortgage backed securities (perfectly legal under Glass-Steagall) when the housing bubble burst. It didn't matter if they would have been stand-alone (Glass-Steagall) or tied together (no Glass-Steagall). They all had them. Again, for the record, I do believe a high percentage, if not most, of the banks that failed during the depression of the 30's, were stand-alone banks as there just wasn't as many banks big enough to be involved in both commercial and investment banking.
I think Glass-Steagall would have made a difference. However, many actions have contributed to our economic situation. The Commodity Modernization Act, I find was a bigger issue than "repealing" Glass-Steagall. So is lack of CAFR discussions when discussing finances.
What Dr Paul propose is let Free Market regulate the banking or other products. Government regulation does not work. Just look at the SEC. Does it stop anything? It does nothing but provide more and more regulation and give a false sense of security.
Again, I'll repeat this in simple words so you can understand. There was a time before banking regulations. They came about for a reason. Go study some economics sometime, so you'll know what you are talking about.
Again, have a look at other countries where there are more controls on banks such as Canada. None of Canada's 5 major banks were in any trouble that was anything near that of the major banks in the United States.
I get it, Ron Paul has some cooky simplified ideas that sound good. That said, listening to ideas because they sound good is stupid. Go listen to some major economists. They don't agree with the OBGYN.
Listening to Ron Paul on Economics is like asking an Economist about the gestational age of a fetus. It's ****** stupid.
Yeah, voting for the guy who wants no regulation on banks is better? Getting rid of the central bank, a fixture of the economic system of every first world economy, is viewed by almost all mainstream economists as a stupid idea.
The lowest debt we had was during Jacksons presidency when he got rid of the Central bank. That's another thing you don't know. BTW the mainstream economists, didn't see the economic collapse coming. Look to the ones who saw it as early as 1946, the Austrian economists, if you want to know about the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
In terms of the bailouts, nobody said they would save the economy. They said they would help. The data proves they did. Unless you have some magic data that says otherwise, and you can provide it, then you should probably not be putting forward such opinions.
There is no data that has proven the bailouts helped except for the ones who received the money. They were helped the economy wasn't. Anymore absurd comments you want to make up out of thin air?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Unless you're looking to have someone pull a kid out of a lady, you should probably skip over what that old man has to say.
Yea lets ignore the only candidate who told us of the upcoming economic collapse and the exact reasons why. Why listen to you? You backed failed policies and have no clue what caused the collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
"Big government" candidates aren't the problem. Canada, for instance, has more social programs, has a stronger national bank and more real estate regulations. Their economy didn't bubble to the degree that the US did and their real estate markets are fine. They had more regulation.
LMAO Canada in no way had the Real Estate Regulations we have. THAT is the reason the economy went under. New regulations were issues that LOWERED the qualifications for mortgage loans. Little to no down payment, lowered qualification on income and credit history. What could possibly go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Once upon a time, people who have studied economic history know this, there were no banking regulations. Then people discovered that banks have the ability to tank an economy by taking excessive risks. Then governments started regulating banks to stop them from taking excessive risks. If Mr. Pauls stupid ideas worked, there wouldn't have been bank regulations in the first place.
You haven't studied economics. Your post proves that. Anyone who has studied a little bit knows every single boom and bust since the creation of the Federal Reserve has been caused by government. Gee I guess its a coincidence that every time the federal Reserve lowers interest rates below market that causes mal investment and the boom and bust cycle. The free money concept. Same thing that caused the Great Depression, same thing that caused the dot com bubble. The same thing that has caused the cost of college to sky rocket. Come back when you know something about the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Ron Paul's ideas largely only sound good to people who are clueless. That's why he was so pathetic in the Republican primaries.
So not manipulating the Housing Industry which caused our economic collapse only sounded good? On what planet? The inability to put things together and use the thought process beyond scratching the surface is pathetic.
Oh yeah..the 100 years of Fed Reserve existence has done us a world of good.
The dollar has lost near 100% of it's value in those 100 years \
I have no idea whatsoever why some taxpayers trust the Federal Reserve at all. It is a private business that operates in secrecy, has no checks and balances, has no US Government Official overseeing it, provides no Accounting Statements to the US Government or the taxpayers regardless of the fact that it is the taxpayers' money that it absolutely controls, allocates, and uses and whatever the hich else it wants to do with it. I wouldn't dream of depositing my money into a bank or credit union where I received no statements, therefore no way I could check how, when and where I was spending and depositing my funds, the interest rates the bank was paying me, and be able to withdraw all my money at any time. I would feel safer putting it in the freezer or buried in the backyard and account for it on my own.
Agreed. The Fed gave trillions of dollars to foreign companies and banks. No oversight at all.
Again, I'll repeat this in simple words so you can understand. There was a time before banking regulations. They came about for a reason. Go study some economics sometime, so you'll know what you are talking about.
Again, I'll repeat this in simple words so you can understand. The Federal Reserve, a secret society, and central banks with their induced boom and bust cycles are the cause of economic collapses. Even agencies acting like a central bank have caused economic ruin. Look up the House of Cook and get some education on economics, so you'll know what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Again, have a look at other countries where there are more controls on banks such as Canada. None of Canada's 5 major banks were in any trouble that was anything near that of the major banks in the United States.
Again you have to look at how Canada didn't make all those sub prime loans like America did. If you did understand economics you'd know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
I get it, Ron Paul has some cooky simplified ideas that sound good. That said, listening to ideas because they sound good is stupid. Go listen to some major economists. They don't agree with the OBGYN.
Of course you don't get it. If you did get it, you'd know to listened to Ron Paul and other economists who told us of the collapse as early as 2000. But instead lets listen to someone who was about as clueless on the collapse as Herman Cain. "September 1, 2008 Economic Growth Surges, but Democrats Ignore the Truth Again" Less than two weeks later, economic collapse. btw he used to work for the Federal Reserve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Listening to Ron Paul on Economics is like asking an Economist about the gestational age of a fetus. It's ****** stupid.
Can't wait to see when you told us of the housing collapse. We should listen to someone like you who didn't know a thing about the upcoming collapse? Riiiiiight.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 06-27-2012 at 01:02 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
UTTER NONSENSE.
The end
