-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Deregulation killed our economy
- Thread starter Mathematician
- Start date
Out of the skillet and into the fire scarecrow.
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
It just might, could possibly be that regulation is what caused the problem in the first place. I feel that, just as there is separation between church and state, so too should there be separation between business and state.
There should be no wellfare period. Watch all these folks suddenly become productive citizens if this where the case.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Noah -
Even though you and I disagree on many issues, I have to say that I thought more of you than this.
After the Savings and Loan scandal, and now, the collapse of the mortgage industy - and the impact that it is having on the worldwide economy, how can you say (with a straight face) that regulation is the cause of the problem?
When regulation was in place, these types of problems did not arise. Once deregulated, the financial industries have shown nothing but greed, mismanagement, and a total contempt for the rest of society.
Regulation is not the problem. Blindly trusting the inherent moral goodness of people that have access to billions of dollars at our expense is.
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
It is not the government's job nor is it within their power IMHO to take money from someone and give it to someone else. It is the individual's responsibility to help their fellow man, not the government's job to force us to do it.
Sure, Rick.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Actually, we aren't that far apart on this one, Rick.
I do believe that it is in society's best interest to help support a family in the event of a job loss, but that support should be for a pre-defined, limited period.
Did hell freeze over? We agree.
Would you kick paraplegics off welfare? How much time would you give them to find a job?
I'm in shock. I'm going to crawl back to my bed and sleep it off.
Alceste
Vagabond
I think there's a complete absence of understanding of what was being regulated in this discussion. With the savings and loan scandal, what was being regulated was the extent to which a savings and loan could directly invest in high risk ventures. The purpose of this regulation was to prevent bankers from gambling irresponsibly with other people's savings. Keating, with McCain's help, was able to ignore this regulation and avoid prosecution for long enough to bilk thousands of people out of their life savings and drive his company into bankruptcy by engaging in the high risk behavior the regulations were established to prevent.
Bush and co rolled out the McCain-Keating formula on a national scale, with an identical result. Imagine that! Remove legislation that limits the extent to which bankers are allowed to gamble with your savings and they gamble your savings away completely (then come dipping into the public purse for more fun money.)
Regulation also used to limit the number of times a debt could be repackaged and re-sold as an asset. It could happen maybe five or six times, then it became illegal. But not now. It's a pyramid scheme now - there is virtually no limit to the number of times your mortgage can circumnavigate the globe in different costumes, pretending to be wealth.
How can democracy have no business interfering with business in democracies? It's a ridiculous position - the only way to hold people accountable is through the rule of law, and democracy is the only way to ensure the law protects the interest of the people, including a strong economy, responsible lending and safe pensions and savings.
Bush and co rolled out the McCain-Keating formula on a national scale, with an identical result. Imagine that! Remove legislation that limits the extent to which bankers are allowed to gamble with your savings and they gamble your savings away completely (then come dipping into the public purse for more fun money.)
Regulation also used to limit the number of times a debt could be repackaged and re-sold as an asset. It could happen maybe five or six times, then it became illegal. But not now. It's a pyramid scheme now - there is virtually no limit to the number of times your mortgage can circumnavigate the globe in different costumes, pretending to be wealth.
How can democracy have no business interfering with business in democracies? It's a ridiculous position - the only way to hold people accountable is through the rule of law, and democracy is the only way to ensure the law protects the interest of the people, including a strong economy, responsible lending and safe pensions and savings.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
No, I wouldn't. I do not believe welfare is a complete and total waste of taxpayers' money, and this would be a good example. I didn't say that welfare should be completely abolished. I do believe that people that are capable of working should have limits placed on their benefits. If you look closely at what I said, I was actually referring to unemployment insurance.
Welfare for a person that is disabled and unable to work is not the same thing as welfare for people that are capable but choose to live on the government tit.
Got it! Thanks for the clarification.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Well, there is a distinct chill in the air.
Why do you assume the private sector would not help paraplegics and necessitate welfare Sunstone? Why should we pay someone to sit in an office and decide who is worthy and who is not?
Spinoza. Read Spinoza.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Why do you think that the private sector cares about paraplegics?
The private sector has not removed the plight of the homeless from our midst. The private sector has not removed litter from our highways. The private sector has not replaced the rusting bridges on our roadways.
From where does this incredible faith in the private sector emanate?
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
I simply feel that it is safer to trust a company to run itself than to have the government run it. But then I am at a disadvantage because I have not bought into the myth that businesses are inherently evil and bad. Should there be safe guards in place? Of course. I just feel that corporate boards and stock holders should be the ones to do it. Not the government.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I am a stockholder and I sit on a corporate board of directors. I do not believe for a moment that government will inherently run our company better than we do, I know (for a fact) that many of the safeguards that we have in place would not be there, were it not for the laws that require them. This is true for safety items, our fiscal controls (including GAAP), environmental measures we take, and a host of other issues.
To believe that a corporation will do what is right without being legally required to do so is pure fantasy. Prior to the revision of laws that address the metal plating industy, the effluents were straight piped directly into streams and rivers. Without the EPA, smokestacks at refineries would be belching out black smoke that (literally) blots out the sun - just as they did prior to regulation. These types of controls are not in place because of the goodness of the people that sit on corporate boards. They are in place because they were mandated by laws.
To deny that is to deny history and reality.