Author Topic: Part of the problem in the Economics field  (Read 4506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Doc

  • General Malcontent and
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: +2/-3
  • Sic transit gloria mundi
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2010, 08:22:48 PM »
I don't like laws that dictate how something is to be done.  I like laws that prohibit a practice.

In PA we used to have usury laws.  The PA legislature determined it didn't want to deal with the societal consequences of high interest rates.  However if you do that, you can't dictate who can and cannot get a loan from a lender.

For instance if it has been determined that having a securities firm and a bank together ends up with a failed bank countless times, I have no problem with saying these businesses should be separate.

I like the fact that 401(k) assets are segregated from the securities firm assets in a separate account and you are prohibited from commingling assets.  

I don't think the federal government should dictate medical standards to doctors. I think there should be some oversight into how the board makes decisions but I don't think the government should be creating manuals on how to do a medical procedure.

I don't think the government should dictate to accountants how to do an audit.  I think the government can step in and say if you are doing an audit you can't have consulting with the client because it is a conflict.

I think the government can decide that the partner on an engagement is personally liable if the audit fails.

Fannie and Freddie are the worst of government and business getting together.

Private firm with an unlimited federal guarantee with political appointees on a board.  

This was initially set up to encourage low income housing financing.  I think the question should have been asked should we be financing low income housing.

Our regulatory code would be clearer if it simply said you can't do this you can do that.  Instead it is a complex mess.

I also think productivity and adherence to the rules would be clearer.  

As for what is going on in housing, this wouldn't have happened if everyone had to save 20% for a down-payment of a house. eyes are bleeding from all that.....

However, from the bolded portions, I assume that your answer to my basic question is "yes"......


Offline Allentownjake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Reputation: +18/-144
  • I'm a mole for OET
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2010, 08:25:40 PM »
Sorry was answering more of a general question on government regulation.

Fannie and Freddie are a failed experiment and should be ended.  Immediately.  There is no way to ever make a private entity that has potential unlimited government guarantees work. 
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2010, 12:15:08 PM »
You seriously want to talk about Bush 43.

Sure.  If you can do more than regurgitate talking points form the left.

I mean Reagan we can have substantive arguments on policy successes and failures and a few of his former advisors have looked at the current economic problems and made some insightful remarks (tax cuts aren't the first words out of their mouths).  At the end of the day, the outsourcing began under his watch.

Link?  Don't just pull stuff out of your ass...back it up.

Bush 43 will go down as the 3rd or 4th worst President in US history.  All depending on how big Obama screws up the next 2 years with a GOP house.

Horseshit.  That is your BDS talking.  Just like I an't have an honest debate about President Bush without letting your typical Liberal BDS jump out.

We can have periods of awful insignificant Presidents and awful philosophy for long cycles.  

No they only tend to last 8 years...four if we're lucky...and those Presidents with "awful philosophy" are replaced by Republicans.
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon

Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn

Offline true_blood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
  • Reputation: +652/-817
Re: Part of the problem in the Economics field
« Reply #53 on: September 10, 2010, 01:42:17 PM »
Thanks to 4 years of a Liberal congress and 2 years of a totally incompetent boob surrounded by American hating, far far left socialist advisers, cabinet, and staff.

And communists.
This administration just "ensured" that we will be hurting for a LONG, LONG time to come. :bird: