Why I am not Voting Obama

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've consistently found that the problems with regulators are FAR less of a problem than the problems generated by lax or no regulation of the financial industry. And I think that nearly every single American would agree with me on this point. It wasn't corrupt regulators that led to the financial crash and ensuing recession that has harmed us all; it was unrestrained capitalists who did so.

Thank you for so concisely demonstrating the truth of my point.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've consistently found that the problems with regulators are FAR less of a problem than the problems generated by lax or no regulation of the financial industry. And I think that nearly every single American would agree with me on this point. It wasn't corrupt regulators that led to the financial crash and ensuing recession that has harmed us all; it was unrestrained capitalists who did so.

Thank you for so concisely demonstrating the truth of my point.

In what way? I ask specifically, because what I wrote about the economy being harmed by unrestrained capitalists isn't an opinion - it's factually true.

I think it's fun for you to carp on others and engage in bombastic exaggeration, but not so fun when you're called on the inaccuracies in your position or your reporting of others' positions. Wouldn't you agree? You tend to put a lot less effort into defending your claims than you do attacking others.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you really believe that human affairsd are perfectable at the hands of any authoritarian structure operated by human beings? I certainly don't, and far prefer freedom

. Exactly, why should I trust YOUR authoritarians. They want tocontrol our reproductive and private lives.

Also, I think you know that I am one who has never believed that unbridled"Creativity" results in what is good for us. Contrary to that, industry has almost never voluntarily developed a way to clean after themselves. It wasnt until we developed an appropriate watchdog did we even begin to consider that a cleanup industry and the process of cleaning up can be bottom lined.
Even with the laws available, industries are still pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. I speak with suitable authority from the mining industry.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

So your advocating 8 more years of Bush do away with regulations kind of government? You must be a banker who realizes he hasent yet gained control of every foot of land in the U.S. yet? Than we can go back to the old english style of government where the surfs did all the work while royality lived off their manual labor. Oh ! Wait. Were already their. Are you really idiot enough to believe that industry and capitol can be trusted to be honest and fair. That was tried on Bushes 8 years and look what happened to the economy.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm not understanding why georgeob would support the party that would force women into having sonograms; an instrument would be inserted into a woman's vigina without her consent.

Talk about government gone nuts, that's a good example of what the conservatives are trying to do to our country; take away freedoms by government fiat.

Did you watch the debate in AZ yesterday? They lambasted Obama on our economy and security. Bin Laden is gone, and our economy continues to improve with more jobs being created, and unemployment dropping.

What world do they live in? It sure isn't reality.

0 Replies

In response to both Cyclo and Farmerman, I don't believe in or advocate the complete absence of regulation or authoritarian control of some aspects of our lives. However, I am mindful that regulatory structures, particularly bureaucratic ones, generally involve both beneficial direct effects and generally adverse side effects. Further experience teaches us that the beneficial direct effects are often less than those forecast, while the adverse side effects are usually greater than those forecast. In short I favor as much regulation as clearly necessary, but would rather err on the side of freedom. In many of the areas we have been discussing on these threads, I believe we have passed the point of optimal balance of these competing effects, and are indulging in the illusion of perfection through regulation in areas involving significant unanticipated side effects.

In all of this I don't distinguish between authoritarians of the right or the left. I dislike both.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

You wrote,

Quote:

However, I am mindful that regulatory structures, particularly bureaucratic ones, generally involve both beneficial direct effects and generally adverse side effects.

You'll need to spell out which regulations had both beneficial and adverse effects that hurt our economy?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You'll need to spell out which regulations had both beneficial and adverse effects that hurt our economy?

No I don't. You need to explain whay you apoparently believe such regulations don't usually come with bad side effects. That is the part of this discussion that defies common sense.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

You'll need to spell out which regulations had both beneficial and adverse effects that hurt our economy?

No I don't. You need to explain whay you apoparently believe such regulations don't usually come with bad side effects. That is the part of this discussion that defies common sense.

Can you explain how the new regulations in Dodd-Frank are hurting me personally? I'm sure that you can see how I was personally affected - along with everyone else - by the lack of those or other regulations of the financial industry.

Why should I believe - as you apparently do - that the side effects of the regulations are worse than not having them, when every bit of available evidence tells me that this is not true? We didn't go into a recession b/c of over-regulation; we went into it because of a lack of regulation. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact - one you have no effective counter-argument against.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

If you make a statement, it's only natural that you would be able to support what you say by providing which regulations you are talking about.

If you can make any statement you wish without supporting it, it doesn't have much credibility.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In short I favor as much regulation as clearly necessary, but would rather err on the side of freedom.

As long as you realize and acknowledge that erring “on the side of freedom” often entails more regulations, I agree. Unfortunately, there are many who suppose “the side of freedom” and “more regulations” are polar opposites and are incompatible. I’m hoping you are not one of them, George.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can you explain how the new regulations in Dodd-Frank are hurting me personally?

No I can't, nor am I even slightly intrested in even trying to do so. However, I can tell you that the law's provisions have added significantly to the costs and regulatory risks associated with the operation of any publically traded company, and that inhibits investment and growth. I sit on the Board of one such company and know this from direct experience. Attempting to explain the details of this would require more time and effort than I am willing to invest in the chore.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why should I believe - as you apparently do - that the side effects of the regulations are worse than not having them, when every bit of available evidence tells me that this is not true? We didn't go into a recession b/c of over-regulation; we went into it because of a lack of regulation. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact - one you have no effective counter-argument against.

You say that we went into a recession because of a lack of regulation, but given the long history of such cyclic economic events, why should I or anyone believe this is true? What explains the Western World's continuing inability to even detect much less prevent such events? It is easy to, after the fact, postulate that this or that rule might have prevented this or that ASSUMED cause of such an event. However, I will assert here that you don't really know what caused the recent world wide economic recession. Clearly there are many factors involved, and one of them is the excessive debts of governments in Europe and North America as well as the litany of causes you have repeatedly cited, as well as other factors that were likely contributors, but which you steadfastly deny.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can you explain how the new regulations in Dodd-Frank are hurting me personally?

No I can't, nor am I even slightly intrested in even trying to do so. However, I can tell you that the law's provisions have added significantly to the costs and regulatory risks associated with the operation of any publically traded company, and that inhibits investment and growth. I sit on the Board of one such company and know this from direct experience. Attempting to explain the details of this would require more time and effort than I am willing to invest in the chore.

I don't give a **** about the additional regulatory burdens for your company. Your company doesn't affect me; I don't profit when it profits. I don't buy it's products. Any negative effects caused by the regulatory burden are way, way removed from my everyday life.

On the other hand, the financial crisis DID affect me - and everyone else I know. How can you possibly claim that I should prioritize your (hypothetical) regulatory burdens over my very real negative experience with the lack of regulation destroying wealth all across the nation, and leading to massive job losses?

Also - isn't it fair to say that these 'increased burdens' from Dodd-Frank merely return you to the environment we USED to have in the past, before the regulations were gutted by Graham and Clinton in 1999? If not, how are the new burdens so much worse? It should be pretty easy for you to explain.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why should I believe - as you apparently do - that the side effects of the regulations are worse than not having them, when every bit of available evidence tells me that this is not true? We didn't go into a recession b/c of over-regulation; we went into it because of a lack of regulation. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact - one you have no effective counter-argument against.
You say that we went into a recession because of a lack of regulation, but given the long history of such cyclic economic events, why should I or anyone believe this is true?

Oh, maybe because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is true - evidence I've presented to you many times. I'll just give you two quick examples: 1, if the Credit Default Swap market had been regulated (instead of unregulated), there is no way in hell it would have grown so large as to drown our entire economy, with zero money to back it up. Companies like AIG would not have been able to promise to pay 100 times their net worth in insurance policies. 2, if the Mortgage market had been regulated on a national level (instead of all 50 states as is/was the case), a whole lot less bad loans would have been originated in the first place, as groups such as Countrywide would have been unable to pick on States who had lax regulatory structures (which is exactly what they did) and use those lax regulations to hide billions of dollars in shitty loans to bad clients.

Quote:

What explains the Western World's continuing inability to even detect much less prevent such events?

Is this a serious question? The pursuit of unrestrained profits and the celebration of incredible wealth as a virtue. They cause credulous fools to time and time again say silly things, such as 'the industry can self-regulate.' Even now you are pushing this line, despite the proven negative effects of allowing the industry to self-regulate.

Quote:

It is easy to, after the fact, postulate that this or that rule might have prevented this or that ASSUMED cause of such an event. However, I will assert here that you don't really know what caused the recent world wide economic recession.

You've been proven wrong on this subject before and been shown to have a very skewed view of events that went on. When faced with the facts I and others (such as your friend Parados) have presented, you retreat from the field. I can't put it any plainer than that. I'm willing to counter-assert that you have much less knowledge in this area than you think you do.

Quote:

Clearly there are many factors involved, and one of them is the excessive debts of governments in Europe and North America as well as the litany of causes you have repeatedly cited, as well as other factors that were likely contributors, but which you steadfastly deny.

Show a logical case how excessive governmental debt led to the financial crisis of 2008. Use specific data points and link to any support you wish for your position. I dare ya to even try! But we both know you'll do nothing of the sort, because that would take effort, and you're not really that kind of guy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

As long as you realize and acknowledge that erring “on the side of freedom” often entails more regulations, I agree. Unfortunately, there are many who suppose “the side of freedom” and “more regulations” are polar opposites and are incompatible. I’m hoping you are not one of them, George.

I'm not really sure I get your meaning here. In general the existence of often complex rules and regulations administered by a government bureaucracy, and influenced by all the variable political factors which inevitably operate around them, do indeed add uncertainty and cost to the activities of those affected by the regulations involved, and do indeed result in a loss of flexibility and freedom of action by those subject to0 them.

Entrepreneurial activity in Hong Kong has always been easy and the economic results that has delivered speak for themselves. On the opposiote end of the spectrum, the sclerosis that the command economies of the former socialist paradises of the unlamented USSR created yielded both poverety and tyranny.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[I don't give a **** about the additional regulatory burdens for your company. Your company doesn't affect me; I don't profit when it profits. I don't buy it's products. Any negative effects caused by the regulatory burden are way, way removed from my everyday life.

On the other hand, the financial crisis DID affect me - and everyone else I know. How can you possibly claim that I should prioritize your (hypothetical) regulatory burdens over my very real negative experience with the lack of regulation destroying wealth all across the nation, and leading to massive job losses?

Cycloptichorn

It's a big world Cyclo and there are many people and employers in it outside the very limited domain of your world and your horizons. Moreover I base my opinions about the issues we are discussing on more than just what might affect you - even setting aside the fact that I don't know, and have only a limited interest in, just what does affect you.

I am not trying to propose how you should think about any of these matters. Instead I am trying to address effects on a much broader scale, as I infer you too were doing in your very broad and unqualified assertions.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

George, you quoted me saying, “As long as you realize and acknowledge that erring “on the side of freedom” often entails more regulations, I agree. Unfortunately, there are many who suppose “the side of freedom” and “more regulations” are polar opposites and are incompatible. I’m hoping you are not one of them, George.”…

…and then wrote:

Quote:

I'm not really sure I get your meaning here.

By way of clarifying my position, let me ask a few questions:

Do you think we are “freer” by having traffic controls at intersections…or do you think we would be “freer” by allowing anyone to speed through an intersection whenever and however that person wants?

Do you think we are “freer” by having laws against murder and robbery…or do you think we would be “freer” by allowing anyone to murder or rob at that person’s pleasure?

Do you think we are “freer” by having laws governing who can set up shop as a physician…or would we be “freer” if anyone could hold him/herself up to be a physician on a whim?

Do you think we are “freer” by…ahhh, I think you get the point.

You do recognize and acknowledge that true freedom is often obtained at the cost of regulation…do you not?

I suspect you do, George, but if I am wrong—tell me so. I’d like to discuss it if I am wrong.

It is a very significant point I am trying to make.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[I don't give a **** about the additional regulatory burdens for your company. Your company doesn't affect me; I don't profit when it profits. I don't buy it's products. Any negative effects caused by the regulatory burden are way, way removed from my everyday life.

On the other hand, the financial crisis DID affect me - and everyone else I know. How can you possibly claim that I should prioritize your (hypothetical) regulatory burdens over my very real negative experience with the lack of regulation destroying wealth all across the nation, and leading to massive job losses?

Cycloptichorn

It's a big world Cyclo and there are many people and employers in it outside the very limited domain of your world and your horizons. Moreover I base my opinions about the issues we are discussing on more than just what might affect you - even setting aside the fact that I don't know, and have only a limited interest in, just what does affect you.

I am not trying to propose how you should think about any of these matters. Instead I am trying to address effects on a much broader scale, as I infer you too were doing in your very broad and unqualified assertions.

My point is that - without a shadow of a doubt - the crisis caused by a lack of regulation (a point which you seem to have conceded) has affected the average American to a tremendously larger negative degree than the regulations that limit your company have affected the average American. Why should the citizens of this country prioritize YOU doing business cheaply over all of us being protected from the actions of those whose decisions harm everyone? I have yet to hear you or anyone else articulate a clear case for why the self-interest of individuals is counter to those things which are most likely to protect them from others.

This is the point that Frank was trying to make above - you don't seem to realize that regulations protect freedom as much as they limit it. They protect my freedom to not be harmed by the actions of others, in pursuit of their profits. You mentioned Hong Kong earlier in a very positive light; it's ironic, as I just read an article yesterday detailing how a lack of regulations there has led to them having some of the most toxic air quality in the world, so bad that it is killing people - worse than mainland China! There's a model for the country we want. Don't the citizens of that country have a right to not have their environment plundered and destroyed by people who want to do business cheaply? Or does freedom and convenience only apply to rich folks who are running businesses?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Or does freedom and convenience only apply to rich folks who are running businesses?

YES!!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,
I fully agree that the laws and regulations that protect our civil society and basic physical safety do indeed contribute to our freedoms, more or less as you asserted. You may recall that I earlier noted that laws and regulations generally have beneficial direct effects and often adverse (and often unanticipated ) side effects. The more intrusive and far reaching the domain of such law and regulation becomes, the greater the potential for such unanticipated and adverse side effects. That too is an important (and self-limiting) consideratrion here.

You cited the benefits of laws requiring the licensing of physicians and other professionals delivering services in ensuring that the public is not victimized by unscrupulous or unqualified providers. While that is certainly true, it is also true that such laws don't operate with perfect effect - inept and unscrupulous practitioners do frequently get through these barriers. In addition such laws are also used in truly silly ways as barriers to entry in service areas that don't involve any advanced skills or abilities beyond the ability of most consumers to detect and judge. Such barriers to entry exist merely to limit competition and protect the scarcity (and higher prices) of existing providers. In California one must get a license to provide manicures to others. Is that really a regulation in the public interest? I think not. I could cite many similar local regulations affecting the performance of even engineering and scientific services that are clearely designed to protect organized locval providers from beneficial economic competition from orther areas - though they are all rationalized as needed protections of the public interest..

I also make a distinction between laws created through a Democratic process, and regulations defined and administered by government bureaucracies that are generally very adept at remaining opaque to public scrutiny and accountability, and self-protective and self-preserving in the extreme. The current Administration has, in several important and pervasive areas of our lives (Health care and "Consumer Affairs" for example) empowered nearly unaccountable bureaucracies to create and administer regulations governing rater large (and poorly defined) areas of our lives. In this way the bureaucratic administrative aspect of law and regulation is increasing at the expense of laws established through a transparent (and reversible) democratic process. That concerns me.

In his rather simple-minded and highly dogmatic way, Cyclo has asserted that the recent recession was certainly and exclusively the result of a lack of regulation that would surely have prevented its occurrence. He refuses to address the easily observable fact of the cyclic nature of such economic reversals and our chronic inability to forecast their occurrence over centuries of recorded history. It's rather easy to analyse such events after they occur (though, even here, there is often disagreement), but almost impossible to accurately forecast their occurrence in advance. The underlying principle behind this dilemma is well-understood by science and mathematics - it involves the chaotic behavior of deterministic, but highly complex and non-linear dynamic systems. Cyclo apparently dismisses that as not affecting him or his friends directly. That is ignorant nonsense.

It is interesting to note that the SEC had ample regulatory discretion and authority to detect and shut down Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme throughout the final decade or more of its large-scale operation. Indeed there were repeated concerns directly reported to them by competent observers armed with coherent data suggesting very strongly that there simply weren't any combinations of trades or investments in the periods involved that would have yielded the volume and rates of return he was reporting. Repeatedly the SEC dismissed those reports and whitewashed the largest financial fraudster in a generatrion. So much for the supposed efficacy of bureaucratic regulators.

For Cyclo - the Air Quality in Hong Kong when I last visited (10 months ago) was very good - comparable with the Bay Area. I think you are confusing it with Beijing which is very bad in that area. (There are lots of regulations in Beijing).

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

For Cyclo - the Air Quality in Hong Kong when I last visited (120 months ago) was very good - comparable with the Bay Area. I think you are confusing it with Beijing which is very bad in that area.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/02/23/hong-kong%E2%80%99s-killer-pollution/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pollution-hong-kong-idUSTRE80803J20120109

10 years ago is a long time. Clean as the bay area? Hardly.

Quote:

In his rather simple-minded and highly dogmatic way, Cyclo has asserted that the recent recession was certainly and exclusively the result of a lack of regulation that would surely have prevented its occurrence. He refuses to address the easily observable fact of the cyclic nature of such economic reversals and our chronic inability to forecast their occurrence over centuries of recorded history. It's rather easy to analyse such events after they occur (though, even here, there is often disagreement), but almost impossible to accurately forecast their occurrence in advance. The underlying principle behind this dilemma is well-understood by science and mathematics - it involves the chaotic behavior of deterministic, but highly complex and non-linear dynamic systems. Cyclo apparently dismisses that as not affecting him or his friends directly. That is ignorant nonsense.

You seem to have misunderstood the most basic point of my argument. The recession caused by a lack of regulation - a point that you provide no counter to, but just brush off while presenting no evidence - DID affect us directly. The regulations in question, or the Dodd-Frank ones, do not. You have represented my argument as the opposite of what it actually is. Please exercise a little more care before labeling others 'ignorant.'

I would also caution regarding lecturing others about the business cycle. Nobody is arguing against the business cycle or the inevitability of downturns. Regulations do not prevent downturns in the business cycle. However, the do prevent such downturns from swallowing ALL of our major banks, our largest insurance company, all of our largest trading houses, all our mortgage originators, thousands of smaller banks, and innumerable companies who had nothing to do with the financial industry our housing in any way - but were doomed when their credit lines dried up during the liquidity trap that ensued. How did that happen? How could regulations have prevented it? In a variety of ways. You should actually try talking about the specifics of what happened, instead of constantly couching your arguments in generalities. But, I've made that request before, to no avail, so why do I bother asking again?

I wrote my argument out very clearly twice, and you don't seem to have understood it either time; is that ignorant?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Why I am not Voting Obama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know