T Nation

The Bottom Line: Regulation

More uncommon knowledge…

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9549

Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

lol I can always count on this subforum for comedic gold.

dem leftists and their support of big business

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

lol I can always count on this subforum for comedic gold.

dem leftists and their support of big business[/quote

I agree that it does sound comical but the left is owned by corporate interests. Maybe not as much as the right but they are a corporate party.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

The left may favor regulations over the republicans but the republicans favor deregulation to favor their masters. Regulations are needed. It is the idea that is true whether the dems pervert the process or not.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

The left may favor regulations over the republicans but the republicans favor deregulation to favor their masters. Regulations are needed. It is the idea that is true whether the dems pervert the process or not.[/quote]

Sounds like their opposing views on regulation is a good thing vs letting either side win or get too much control, unlike some other issues.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

The left may favor regulations over the republicans but the republicans favor deregulation to favor their masters. Regulations are needed. It is the idea that is true whether the dems pervert the process or not.[/quote]

This is not true for Republicans. None of them favor deregulation on principal unless they call themselves Austrians or libertarians. They favor peeling back a single layer of regulations to expose pre-existing regulatory environments that favor corporations. Best recent example is the misconception that the deregulation of commercial/investment banks caused speculation, when in fact the incentive for banks to speculate with account holder’s money can be traced back to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance CORPORATION(FDIC.) Guaranteeing bank deposits made competition among banks for depositors on the basis of risk in their investment portfolios irrelevant.

So no, if you want to be consistent in deregulation and having an even playing field you have to go back much further than either party is willing to. Of course this is impossible, so we will just see regulation compounded going forward, the actual implications on businesses have little to do with the law on the books anyway. The agencies that are tasked to implement to regulations pick and choose which ones to pursue in favor of the most entrenched corporations, the administration and party doesn’t matter, because appointees are universal for the most part.

The regulations should benefit the consumer

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The regulations should benefit the consumer [/quote]

At the expense of the saver? I think not.

I think we need to regulate the vagina and sexual regulation.Who fucks who is very important . We also need to regulate harmless drugs and drugs that are possibly good for you and we should ignore what education tells us . We need to regulate freedom and allow business to flourish even if it is bad for freedom

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The regulations should benefit the consumer [/quote]

At the expense of the saver? I think not.[/quote]

I do not believe the consumer gets much benefit from from the destruction of the environment and in the long run it could cost us more . Fracking comes to mind

Mining is big in AZ we have a that is going to inject millions of gallons of sulfuric acid into the ground

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/10/19/20121019mining-company-files-suit-block-florence-law-could-halt-project.html

Oh did I mention they are not liable for any disasters , deregulations at it’s finest

Some laws are good, some are not. Some regulations are good, some are not. There is no valid, sweeping value judgement of such a complicated and nebulous concept as “regulation.”

It would have been nice, for example, if some kind of regulation had been in place to prevent the financial geniuses at Morgan Stanley from selling an asset whose proposed nicknames were “subprime meltdown,” “nuclear holocaust,” “Mike Tyson’s punchout,” and–my favorite–“shitbag.”

Damn poor people

The fact that Aaron is still in prison and, unless pardoned, will be there until the day of his death is almost difficult to fathom. I’m with you on that Pitt.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

The left may favor regulations over the republicans but the republicans favor deregulation to favor their masters. Regulations are needed. It is the idea that is true whether the dems pervert the process or not.[/quote]

This is not true for Republicans. None of them favor deregulation on principal unless they call themselves Austrians or libertarians. They favor peeling back a single layer of regulations to expose pre-existing regulatory environments that favor corporations. Best recent example is the misconception that the deregulation of commercial/investment banks caused speculation, when in fact the incentive for banks to speculate with account holder’s money can be traced back to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance CORPORATION(FDIC.) Guaranteeing bank deposits made competition among banks for depositors on the basis of risk in their investment portfolios irrelevant.

So no, if you want to be consistent in deregulation and having an even playing field you have to go back much further than either party is willing to. Of course this is impossible, so we will just see regulation compounded going forward, the actual implications on businesses have little to do with the law on the books anyway. The agencies that are tasked to implement to regulations pick and choose which ones to pursue in favor of the most entrenched corporations, the administration and party doesn’t matter, because appointees are universal for the most part.[/quote]
Unfortunately evidence and history does not bear out your assertion that the deregulation of the finance sector didn’t cause the collapse of this market. In the past there were regulations that worked well like Glass-Steigel Act. Once these regulations were torn apart “to promote ‘free-maket’ competition” it began the reckless gambling by Wall Street. Before they were unable to do such bets as it was against the law. After the regulations were stripped the carnage began.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Damn poor people

[/quote]

Reversal of what is right. When the sinners are saints.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

The left may favor regulations over the republicans but the republicans favor deregulation to favor their masters. Regulations are needed. It is the idea that is true whether the dems pervert the process or not.[/quote]

This is not true for Republicans. None of them favor deregulation on principal unless they call themselves Austrians or libertarians. They favor peeling back a single layer of regulations to expose pre-existing regulatory environments that favor corporations. Best recent example is the misconception that the deregulation of commercial/investment banks caused speculation, when in fact the incentive for banks to speculate with account holder’s money can be traced back to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance CORPORATION(FDIC.) Guaranteeing bank deposits made competition among banks for depositors on the basis of risk in their investment portfolios irrelevant.

So no, if you want to be consistent in deregulation and having an even playing field you have to go back much further than either party is willing to. Of course this is impossible, so we will just see regulation compounded going forward, the actual implications on businesses have little to do with the law on the books anyway. The agencies that are tasked to implement to regulations pick and choose which ones to pursue in favor of the most entrenched corporations, the administration and party doesn’t matter, because appointees are universal for the most part.[/quote]
Unfortunately evidence and history does not bear out your assertion that the deregulation of the finance sector didn’t cause the collapse of this market. In the past there were regulations that worked well like Glass-Steigel Act. Once these regulations were torn apart “to promote ‘free-maket’ competition” it began the reckless gambling by Wall Street. Before they were unable to do such bets as it was against the law. After the regulations were stripped the carnage began.[/quote]

And the FDIC was…what exactly? A free market agency telling banks they could do as they please with depositors money? How exactly is a banking industry where depositors are guaranteed by a federally backed and created Insurance corporation and Security and exchange commission unregulated? Wasn’t the repeal of Glass-Steagal just a flashback to an older set of regulation that bankers favored at the time and not deregulation at all? I mean Sarbanes - Oxley establish at least 2 additional agencies and hundreds of additional compliance measures and repealing Glass- Steagal makes it “deregulation”? You really want to claim it wasn’t just a change in regulation? Further, most democrats in the house and senate voted for sarbanes-oxley, so I don’t see how there’s any measurable difference between the corporation and banks that use republicans and democrats as the middle management for hired muscle in this crony capitalist system.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sounds like a promo piece for regulation. There are pros and cons to regulation. But in a nutshell the left favor burdensome regulations because they work in favor of large companies that can employ full time compliance departments and the left always seeks to consolidate power amongst an elite of their own. [/quote]

The left may favor regulations over the republicans but the republicans favor deregulation to favor their masters. Regulations are needed. It is the idea that is true whether the dems pervert the process or not.[/quote]

This is not true for Republicans. None of them favor deregulation on principal unless they call themselves Austrians or libertarians. They favor peeling back a single layer of regulations to expose pre-existing regulatory environments that favor corporations. Best recent example is the misconception that the deregulation of commercial/investment banks caused speculation, when in fact the incentive for banks to speculate with account holder’s money can be traced back to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance CORPORATION(FDIC.) Guaranteeing bank deposits made competition among banks for depositors on the basis of risk in their investment portfolios irrelevant.

So no, if you want to be consistent in deregulation and having an even playing field you have to go back much further than either party is willing to. Of course this is impossible, so we will just see regulation compounded going forward, the actual implications on businesses have little to do with the law on the books anyway. The agencies that are tasked to implement to regulations pick and choose which ones to pursue in favor of the most entrenched corporations, the administration and party doesn’t matter, because appointees are universal for the most part.[/quote]
Unfortunately evidence and history does not bear out your assertion that the deregulation of the finance sector didn’t cause the collapse of this market. In the past there were regulations that worked well like Glass-Steigel Act. Once these regulations were torn apart “to promote ‘free-maket’ competition” it began the reckless gambling by Wall Street. Before they were unable to do such bets as it was against the law. After the regulations were stripped the carnage began.[/quote]

And the FDIC was…what exactly? A free market agency telling banks they could do as they please with depositors money? How exactly is a banking industry where depositors are guaranteed by a federally backed and created Insurance corporation and Security and exchange commission unregulated? Wasn’t the repeal of Glass-Steagal just a flashback to an older set of regulation that bankers favored at the time and not deregulation at all? I mean Sarbanes - Oxley establish at least 2 additional agencies and hundreds of additional compliance measures and repealing Glass- Steagal makes it “deregulation”? You really want to claim it wasn’t just a change in regulation? Further, most democrats in the house and senate voted for sarbanes-oxley, so I don’t see how there’s any measurable difference between the corporation and banks that use republicans and democrats as the middle management for hired muscle in this crony capitalist system.[/quote]

I agree that both parties are at fault. Are you suggesting that deregulation had little to do with the finance sector meltdown?