by The_pantless_hero » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:19 am
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Barringtonia » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:25 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:CEOs basically say "regulation was lax and it was the job of the companies management to regulate themselves and they failed. Also, please no more regulation."
However, the bankers insisted that regulators played a role in the crisis, arguing that they failed to keep up with the proliferation of new, sophisticated financial products – such as mortgage-backed securities and credit insurance – and lacked authority to police the growing markets.
"In many instances, stronger regulation may have been able to prevent some of the problems," Dimon said in his prepared testimony.
Mack called for an umbrella regulating agency covering all aspects of the financial services industry, while Dimon said that in the future, policymakers must do a better job of identifying gaps in regulations left by the development of new financial instruments. "I don't think it's unique to the financial services," he said. "New products have problems."
But he added: "The solution is not to cap the size of financial firms… We need a regulatory system that provides for even the biggest banks to be allowed to fail, but in a way that does not put taxpayers or the broader economy at risk."
by Perendinate (Ancient) » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:27 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100114/us_time/08599195353200
Banking CEOs get hauled before Congressional committees and are grilled on why they fucked up and why we should believe they still arn't doing it. CEOs basically say "regulation was lax and it was the job of the companies management to regulate themselves and they failed. Also, please no more regulation." Seriously, who buys this shit? How many regulations were ever put in place because companies were ever able to regulate themselves? Why exactly should we not regulate them when they are obviously continuing to do the same thing they were doing previously? Some of them seem to want to point to the Federal Reserve and yell "plenty of regulation!" Given that an investigation basically for the Federal Reserve colluding with the banks is beginning, I don't seem to trust that that is limiting them any more than the SEC.
by Karsol » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:29 am
by Barringtonia » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:31 am
by Rumbria » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:34 am
by Vonnerz » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:18 am
We will work with the committee to provide relevant information as appropriate." *
by Neu Leonstein » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:41 pm
The_pantless_hero wrote:Given that an investigation basically for the Federal Reserve colluding with the banks is beginning, I don't seem to trust that that is limiting them any more than the SEC.
Rumbria wrote:You'd think that they would at least cool it off for a while until the heat died down.
Seriously...
Vonnerz wrote:you just gotta hope for a severe arse reaming of the banks legal staff...
by Maurepas » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:42 pm
Barringtonia wrote:The difference is that they're no longer the same companies, they're bank holding companies now and that entails far more regulation. What they're saying is that there's a lot of regulation over what they can do now as opposed to whether there was enough regulation before the crisis, when they had very few restrictions over what they did.
Partly they say that the regulations in place before the crisis where neither sufficient nor policed with authority.
Ultimately, they're not saying 'give us even less regulation', they're asking for effective regulation rather than populist measures that don't actually do anything.
by Vonnerz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:00 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:Vonnerz wrote:you just gotta hope for a severe arse reaming of the banks legal staff...
They'll be working their arses off, that much is assured. But at least they'll be earning their money. I've seen the kind of work lawyers at investment banks usually do, and it just amounts to changing standardised contracts every so often and signing things.
by Klaus Devestatorie » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:05 am
by Greed and Death » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:13 am
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:20 am
greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Farnhamia » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:34 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:36 am
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Vonnerz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:34 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
by Greed and Death » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:42 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
by Farnhamia » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:45 am
Vonnerz wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...
by Greed and Death » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:46 am
Farnhamia wrote:Vonnerz wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...
Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."
by Vonnerz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:47 am
greed and death wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Vonnerz wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...
Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."
They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.
by Farnhamia » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:49 am
greed and death wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Vonnerz wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...
Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."
They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.
by The Rich Port » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:52 am
by Greed and Death » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:59 am
Farnhamia wrote:greed and death wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Vonnerz wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:greed and death wrote:You forget the part where the banks said we will cease loaning money at all and shut down the economy if you pass a single regulatory law.
Retort: "Then we let your asses fry in the fire next time you go down."
I'm sure all those big banks would thoroughly enjoy being broken down and sold off to random people.
should have been done the first time around...but then that's free market economics and not socialism...
Well, there is a downside to allowing huge companies like Citigroup and AIG and various others implode, namely, they tend to take thousands of jobs with them when they go, which only makes things worse. Frankly, the bail-out should have included conditions and not have been just a deivery of money. They should have been told, "Here's some money to see you through this patch, but we expect you to put this money to work by lending it, don't just sit on it."
They were lending too much, that's why they went bankrupt.
Well, I did hear it complained that the banks were just sitting on the bailout money. They were lending to people who couldn't repay the loans. Their reaction when their fingers got burned was to stop lending to anyone at all. I heard stories of companies with perfect records as borrowers, the sorts you'd trust with your last dime, not being able to borrow a dime.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Bienenhalde, Big Eyed Animation, Duvniask, Fort Viorlia, Google [Bot], Gorutimania, Hypron, Ifreann, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, New Heldervinia, Northern Rabgrema, Originia, Plan Neonie, Simonia, Stratonesia, The Vooperian Union, Umeria, Valyxias
Advertisement