Toronto Escorts

Please correct me if I'm wrong..

dcbogey

New member
Sep 29, 2004
3,171
0
0
but I always thought conservatives were for less government regulation, not more.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.wfed0328/GIStory/


"U.S. proposes sweeping overhaul of financial regulation
MARTIN CRUTSINGER
Friday, March 28, 2008
WASHINGTON — he Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the nation's financial industry is regulated.

In an effort to deal with the problems highlighted by the current severe credit crisis, the new plan would give major new powers to the Federal Reserve, according to a 22-page executive summary obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The proposal would designate the Fed as the primary regulator of market stability, greatly expanding the central bank's ability to examine not just commercial banks but all segments of the financial services industry.

The administration proposal, which is to be formally unveiled in a speech Monday by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, also proposes consolidating the current scheme of bank regulation.

The plan would shut down the Office of Thrift Supervision, which supervises thrift institutions, and transfer its functions to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates banks. The plan would eliminate the distinction between banks and thrift institutions.

The role the Federal Reserve has been playing in efforts to stabilize the financial system after a credit crisis hit last August would be formalized.

The Fed would become the government's “market stability regulator,” given sweeping powers to gather information on a wide range of institutions so that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues could better detect where threats to the system might be hiding.

The proposal is certain to generate intense scrutiny in Congress and within the financial services industry, where past efforts to change how regulation is handled have met with fierce resistance.

Senator Charles Schumer or New York said that he approved of much that Mr. Paulson had included in the administration proposal.

“In broad outlines, we agree with large parts of Secretary Paulson's plan,” Mr. Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement. “He is on the money when he calls for a more unified regulatory structure, although we would prefer a single regulator to the three he proposes.”

Under Mr. Paulson's approach, the Fed would serve as the market stability regulator and there would also be a financial regulator that would focus on financial institutions that operate with government guarantees such as deposit insurance for banks.

The administration plan also proposes a business conduct regulator who would be in charge of overseeing consumer protection issues.

The plan was first reported by The New York Times on its website Friday night."

I tend to get a little nervous when a government starts to interfere in the market to this degree.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,033
5,995
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
You are correct.
Don't forget the Federal Reserve is a private outfit NOT a government agency. Dubya is just giving the Bankers more power to do as they please with less oversight and regulation from the US Gov.
Don't be nervous, Dubya says these are fine honest banker folks who don't need any watching.....:eek:
 

cypherpunk

New member
Mar 10, 2004
929
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
You are correct.
Don't forget the Federal Reserve is a private outfit NOT a government agency. Dubya is just giving the Bankers more power to do as they please with less oversight and regulation from the US Gov.
Don't be nervous, Dubya says these are fine honest banker folks who don't need any watching.....:eek:
One of us misread the article.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,033
5,995
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
dcbogey said:
You have to excuse Woodie, he has his blinders on.
!??!?!!?
Please tell me then, how giving more power to the FED which helped create the present mess we are in, with a lot of help from Alan Greenspan, is not like putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank?....:rolleyes:
 

luckyjackson

Active member
Aug 19, 2001
1,505
2
38
Please correct me if I'm wrong..
Ok. The convention is that conservatives traditionally want less government, but not necessarily less regulation.

Now what are you going to do for me? ;)
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,033
5,995
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
DonQuixote said:
Business practices are being perceived as less than
moral and responsible and the regulations are on their
way.
And the regulators are long overdue.
This conservative myth that 'self regulation' is all we need, promoted widely during the Reagan Revulsion has been exposed for all the corporate BS it has always been....;)
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
WoodPeckr said:
And the regulators are long overdue.
This conservative myth that 'self regulation' is all we need, promoted widely during the Reagan Revulsion has been exposed for all the corporate BS it has always been...
Regulation and deregulation cycle back and forth., There is no doubt that industries can become over regulated stifling initiative and growth. Also, that the lack of effective regulation can lead to industries failing to self-police, and to lack of control thereby jeopardizing "safety."
 

jazzpig

New member
Jul 17, 2003
2,507
1
0
Aardvark154 said:
Regulation and deregulation cycle back and forth., There is no doubt that industries can become over regulated stifling initiative and growth. Also, that the lack of effective regulation can lead to industries failing to self-police, and to lack of control thereby jeopardizing "safety."
There's a difference between stifling initiative and growth and stifling greed and avarice. I'ld wager Reagan's agenda was to remedy the latter.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
jazzpig said:
There's a difference between stifling initiative and growth and stifling greed and avarice. I'ld wager Reagan's agenda was to remedy the latter.
As I said they go back and forth. Extreme cases are “easy to call” but there is great deal of grey in what you call greed and avarice and I might call initiative and growth and in each case one or the other of us might be right, but neither of us consistantly.

I think the best comment I heard today from the Department of the Treasury was: If certain firms on Wall Street want to act like irresponsible children, they will have to be treated like irresponsible children.


Over simplistic yes, but also memorable.
 

jazzpig

New member
Jul 17, 2003
2,507
1
0
Aardvark154 said:
I think the best comment I heard today from the Department of the Treasury was: If certain firms on Wall Street want to act like irresponsible children, they will have to be treated like irresponsible children.
Over simplistic yes, but also memorable.
What does treating them like irresponsible children mean exactly?
 

jazzpig

New member
Jul 17, 2003
2,507
1
0
DonQuixote said:
Unmitigated arrogance and greed.

The troubles Bear Stearns got into had to do
with risks for profit that pushed the envelope.

Total lack of adult supervision.

Enron is probably another excellent example
in a long list of CEOs and their kind solely
concerned about the bottom line in the near
future without any vision of the long term.
Its the next quarterly report and the stock
values. Few, other than those run by the
entrepreneurs, are about the immediate
results with little other concerns.

China focuses on the long term. That's
why Apple has been a trend setter. Get it.
I understand this already. If you you read my earlier post you'll see I made this point already. My question was raised in reference to a comment made by the Dept. of Treasury in regards to some undefined, idle threat of reprimand that would be administered to irresponsible firms on Wall Street.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
jazzpig said:
I understand this already. If you you read my earlier post you'll see I made this point already. My question was raised in reference to a comment made by the Dept. of Treasury in regards to some undefined, idle threat of reprimand that would be administered to irresponsible firms on Wall Street.
It may not yet be fully defined, but I hardly think it's idle when Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is supposed to propose among other things in a speech on Monday shutting down the Office of Thrift Supervision and transferring its functions to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, thus eliminating the regulator distinction between banks and thrift institutions. Further, the role the Federal Reserve has been playing in efforts to stabilize the financial system would be formalized by expanding the Federal Reserve Bank's authority to examine not just commercial banks but all segments of the financial services industry.

Senator Schumer of New York, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee has already said that he approved of much of what the Secretary of the Treasury is to propose.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
A rationalization of Financial Services regulation is long overdue. To have separate regulatory agencies for the thrift and banking industries is just silly - they are in the same business.

Glass Steagall is long dead, all these business (banking, capital markets, insurance) are blurred, we need a comprehensive regulatory agency and regime to reflect the new reality. Ratings agencies should also be looked at.

OTB
 
E

enduser1

dcbogey said:
but I always thought conservatives were for less government regulation, not more.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.wfed0328/GIStory/


"U.S. proposes sweeping overhaul of financial regulation
MARTIN CRUTSINGER
Friday, March 28, 2008
WASHINGTON — he Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the nation's financial industry is regulated.

In an effort to deal with the problems highlighted by the current severe credit crisis, the new plan would give major new powers to the Federal Reserve, ......... I tend to get a little nervous when a government starts to interfere in the market to this degree.
What is not getting out is the severity of the problem. Bear Stearns lost an estimated 36 Billion and was wiped out. It has no value or rather a negative value. The value assigned on the buy out of Bear Stearns was totally arbitrary.

The losses on the subprime mortgage mess are conservatviely measured at 600 billion. 1 Trillion is more like it. Basically the bond market has crashed.

The United States has entered an economic depression. The government is desperately trying to monetize the losses. This period is comparable to what happenned in 1928 early '29. The big boys knew there was a terrible problem and they moved to stem the tide. There was a final blow out high on the stock market and then everything fell apart.

I expect a hell of a stock rally this summer, and then by October the stock boom, its over. Extremely hard times are coming to the USA. The big difference between 1929 and now is inflation. The USA is going to make an enormous effort to stop deflation and go the hyperinflationary route instead. That will actually make it worse.

EU
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts