elizabeth warren is correct on this

[GG]

I thought you were in favor of the firewall between their trading and insured deposits?

 

In theory, yes. In practice, good luck implementing it and not put foreign state owned banks at a major advantage. Plus, the derivatives that are most likely to cause a bailout event would have still been permitted to reside under the regulated & insured banks.

 

Why do you think that small, regional banks hate the rule more than the "too big to fail" banks?

 

The rule was stupid.

[Jauronimo]

Ok so Warren is right in your mind, what is the remedy? It's so easy to say this won't work or this is a bad idea by either side - just as she is doing. But, it's much harder to say what will work or what is a better idea. Simply saying no to an idea is not fixing it nor is it doing anything else then forcing it to stay the same way.

Well that was worthless.

no thanks.

 

It's annoying as hell that it is inevitable that Birddog says "The sky is blue." TYTT comes in and says "No, that's not simply true, it's cloudy." Then a debate goes on as if either side of the argument is a better answer then the other when the reality is both are acceptable and both could still be wrong.

 

trolls like you only make it worse by parroting a talking head or tweet. but thats your schtick.

Just as profound as your last post.

 

Well intentioned nit wits like you who have no comprehension of the subject matter but insist that some sort of "compromise" is necessarily the solution to everything do little to advance the conversation as well. I know you fancy yourself to unbiased and enlightened because you think the answer to all things falls somewhere in between Tasker and Birdog, but thats not an opinion. Thats a cop out.

[boyst]

Well that was worthless.

 

Just as profound as your last post.

 

Well intentioned nit wits like you who have no comprehension of the subject matter but insist that some sort of "compromise" is necessarily the solution to everything do little to advance the conversation as well. I know you fancy yourself to unbiased and enlightened because you think the answer to all things falls somewhere in between Tasker and Birdog, but thats not an opinion. Thats a cop out.

...

 

I simply require that individuals who feel inclined to opine on a given subject be educated and informed about the subject; else I point out that they have no idea what they're talking about.

 

You, for instance, have no idea what you're talking about in this thread. If you did, you'd be able to distinguish between my posts and those made by birdog. For this reason I have no interest in any opinions you might offer in this thread, until you've bothered to learn the subject matter.

...

 

I simply require that individuals who feel inclined to opine on a given subject be educated and informed about the subject; else I point out that they have no idea what they're talking about.

 

You, for instance, have no idea what you're talking about in this thread. If you did, you'd be able to distinguish between my posts and those made by birdog. For this reason I have no interest in any opinions you might offer in this thread, until you've bothered to learn the subject matter.

well intended nitwits like myself laugh at ya'll involved debating birddog on this because you're not changing your opinion and birddog isn't either. ridiculing each other is no more effective then anything else. i don't have an opinion on this or the financial implications of it because of course i don't care to understand it. it's not rocket surgery but its not worth my time.

 

So, taking my time to learn about this subject merely to assert my opinion on it to someone who clearly would object to it is not worth my time. It is not a cop out it is a choice. whatever i do or don't know on this matter would be wiped away by birddog or ya'll if you simply had a different opinion. i take no moral high ground or fancy myself to be anything other then just a dumb American who bases most of his beliefs off of sound bites and tidbits filtered thru the news in the 15 seconds it can generally hold my attention span. I am, however, unbiased. As long as I can remain in my own ignorance and choose to hold beliefs which allow me to remove myself from societal standards and government regulation then i am much happier. elsewise, i could give a crap because 99% of this countries legislation does not effect me.

[Jauronimo]

well intended nitwits like myself laugh at ya'll involved debating birddog on this because you're not changing your opinion and birddog isn't either. ridiculing each other is no more effective then anything else. i don't have an opinion on this or the financial implications of it because of course i don't care to understand it. it's not rocket surgery but its not worth my time.

 

So, taking my time to learn about this subject merely to assert my opinion on it to someone who clearly would object to it is not worth my time. It is not a cop out it is a choice. whatever i do or don't know on this matter would be wiped away by birddog or ya'll if you simply had a different opinion. i take no moral high ground or fancy myself to be anything other then just a dumb American who bases most of his beliefs off of sound bites and tidbits filtered thru the news in the 15 seconds it can generally hold my attention span. I am, however, unbiased. As long as I can remain in my own ignorance and choose to hold beliefs which allow me to remove myself from societal standards and government regulation then i am much happier. elsewise, i could give a crap because 99% of this countries legislation does not effect me.

Great. Ain't got no learnin' and proud of it. Now shut the f@#$ up while adults who did bother to educate themselves on the subject and Birdog discuss the topic at hand.

 

What continues to escape your limited grasp, like chasin greased up chickns' at night I tell ya, is that there are people participating that are still in the process of forming opinions and educating themselves on the topic. There are people reading and lurking who haven't even heard about this particular legislation yet. In replying to even the biggest troll posts, I'm not trying to change their minds, but to put down rationale thought that someone else might read, consider and respond to. Or to get a few jabs in because thats fun for me.

 

Your point of view is the biggest !@#$ing cop out. Claiming that this is a waste of time because no one will change their minds is not only false, but by that logic theres no reason to discuss anything, theres no reason for this board. How many people are changing their opinions about hackett on the main board today? You don't understand this thread or this subforum at all.

[Chef Jim]

Great. Ain't got no learnin' and proud of it. Now shut the f@#$ up while adults who did bother to educate themselves on the subject and Birdog discuss the topic at hand.

 

What continues to escape your limited grasp, like chasin greased up chickns' at night I tell ya, is that there are people participating that are still in the process of forming opinions and educating themselves on the topic. There are people reading and lurking who haven't even heard about this particular legislation yet. In replying to even the biggest troll posts, I'm not trying to change their minds, but to put down rationale thought that someone else might read, consider and respond to. Or to get a few jabs in because thats fun for me.

 

Your point of view is the biggest !@#$ing cop out. Claiming that this is a waste of time because no one will change their minds is not only false, but by that logic theres no reason to discuss anything, theres no reason for this board. How many people are changing their opinions about hackett on the main board today? You don't understand this thread or this subforum at all.

My question is has anyone changed anyone's mind about anything ever in this forum.

[birdog1960]

from the national review link:

 

"Bailout politics is still very much with us: People resent — rightly — what was done and how it was done. Many on the Tea Party right and the Occupy left intuit that there exists a dysfunctional relationship between Wall Street and Washington, though Senator Warren et al. maddeningly believe that the way to ameliorate this is to invest Washington with even greater powers, enabling even worse misbehavior and even more remorseless rent-seeking."

 

so both far right and far left find the principle behind the revision distasteful. warren voices her disapproval in the most appropriate forum and both sides criticize. if nothing else, this is a very interesting phenomenum. apparently because she supported a bill that allowed for gov't regulation of what the gov't was willing to guarantee, she was "investing washington with greater powers, enabling worse misbehavior…" i suppose this writer would then feel that fdic insurance for bank deposits should be removed altogether. if so, why not say that? that would be an extremely popular stance with the average american.

 

in this way, i agree with jboys. what i've just stated is likely the libertarian solution to the question. the liberal stance would involve further gov't regulation, not less. but many on both sides see a problem here. it's a place to start from agreement.

Edited December 15, 2014 by birdog1960

[boyst]

Great. Ain't got no learnin' and proud of it. Now shut the f@#$ up while adults who did bother to educthemselves on the subject and Birdog discuss the topic at hand.

 

What continues to escape your limited grasp, like chasin greased up chickns' at night I tell ya, is that there are people participating that are still in the process of forming opinions and educating themselves on the topic. There are people reading and lurking who haven't even heard about this particular legislation yet. In replying to even the biggest troll posts, I'm not trying to change their minds, but to put down rationale thought that someone else might read, consider and respond to. Or to get a few jabs in because thats fun for me.

 

Your point of view is the biggest !@#$ing cop out. Claiming that this is a waste of time because no one will change their minds is not only false, but by that logic theres no reason to discuss anything, theres no reason for this board. How many people are changing their opinions about hackett on the main board today? You don't understand this thread or this subforum at all.

For the first time in history. You changed my mind. You got me to disagree with you now I agree with you! Its win/win. Now, I am enlightened and now your argument is true!

[boyst]

My question is has anyone changed anyone's mind about anything ever in this forum.

Pretty much. Everyone here has set opinions and they're not being changed. That they use such vitriol in replying to others opinions that do not agree in the spirit of creating an argument is hilarious.

 

I think the banks should have been allowed to fail, but I'd get lamb basted for saying it and get no where backing it up. Those with a fragile self of steam would never last in this place, which is clear. This place is great for many subjects but politics is hardly debatable here. Things like Ferguson and Judicial subjects are ideal for this format. Republican/Democrat arguments are worthless.

[DC Tom]

My question is has anyone changed anyone's mind about anything ever in this forum.

 

I know of two cases where I've changed someone's mind.

[birdog1960]

Pretty much. Everyone here has set opinions and they're not being changed. That they use such vitriol in replying to others opinions that do not agree in the spirit of creating an argument is hilarious.

 

I think the banks should have been allowed to fail, but I'd get lamb basted for saying it and get no where backing it up. Those with a fragile self of steam would never last in this place, which is clear. This place is great for many subjects but politics is hardly debatable here. Things like Ferguson and Judicial subjects are ideal for this format. Republican/Democrat arguments are worthless.

actually, this subject has common ground. your question of what to do about it is the discussion. i agree with warren. at a minimum, continue current regulations. i've yet to read any other ideas except tired, old insults

[TakeYouToTasker]

actually, this subject has common ground. your question of what to do about it is the discussion. i agree with warren. at a minimum, continue current regulations. i've yet to read any other ideas except tired, old insults

All Dodd-Frank serves to do is protect the interests of the largest banks, and insulate them from domestic competition. It also makes American firms less competitive with their foreign counterparts. Finally, it did nothing at all to curb to big to fail or the bailout culture with "firewalls". The ultimate power lies with the regulators.

Edited December 15, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

actually, this subject has common ground. your question of what to do about it is the discussion. i agree with warren. at a minimum, continue current regulations. i've yet to read any other ideas except tired, old insults

shhh, I am trying to make a point

 

don't introduce logic here, it's not your place. Remember, you're the one to lampoon. You're the Diseny Character that comes in and humbly says "gee, I don't think so, _____ is a good idea because I think its better then the popular opinion."

 

That's where the upstanding people of debate enter in and say you're so wrong you could not be more wronger. But, Jauronimo forgets I actually can make a point. In fact, I have three very important points to ask him.

 

1) I don't know much about this whole case and situation and want to engage in debate. I have seen 2 links in this thread. One by the OP and one by Jauronimo. Both of those are just two sides of an opinion. One side per political alignment, you could say. So, the other 27 replies - 2 of mine = 25 - 5 replies of that... 20. 20 posts and nothing debated. Nothing but a disagreement between the OP and Jauronimo. Should one want to be educated on this subject they have two choices in this thread to generate argument.

 

Now of course, you should say I should take my own time and educate myself on the matter to form an opinion and as soon as I do that then I will either be the mainstream here or simply some form of uneducated.

;

2) Where is the debate or actual argument?

 

When asked in regard to any statement it is 100% ignored. Birddog was asked:

 

Let's start here:

What are the specific changes being made to Dodd-Frank?

He didn't reply.

 

also...GG made a point that was solid, rational and simple. It was ignored. It was ignored because it made sense.

 

I guess I don't see where the arguments are taking place and instead just seeing a pile on against a statement without actual solutions. a debate is only worthwhile if you can offer a solution.

 

 

In my case, I say deregulate the banks, let them destroy themselves in the first place. putting a firewall or protection to the consumer is only going to go so far because the consumer will now only be protected so far until the banks screw up again and they're bailed out again. of course, that may take 3 more decades, but it will happen and the short term protection the consumer has in the meantime limiting their exposure in assets is ultimately punished when taxpayer money goes to fix the wrongs that were there since the beginning.

 

if the banks would have been allowed to fail at least there would have been progress. this was like taking a dirty pair of britches that didn't get clean in the first cycle and throwing them back in again for another go around.

 

but, yep, i'm a simple country folk with all my money in the mattress and mason jars buried in the yard with my IRA invested in to limited edition dale earnhardt trading cards.

 

All Dodd-Frank serves to do is protect the interests of the largest banks, and insulate them from domestic competition. It also makes American firms less competitive with their foreign counterparts. Finally, it did nothing at all to curb to big to fail or the bailout culture with "firewalls". The ultimate power lies with the regulators.

and of course i am too stupid to form an opinion on this but with any type of regulation there is going to be a heavy investment in undermining those and makes the institutions much more capable of corruption due to the lack of transparency. at some point those regulations will be outdated and new policies will be cast to adjust for what has already been an issue.

[Jauronimo]

actually, this subject has common ground. your question of what to do about it is the discussion. i agree with warren. at a minimum, continue current regulations. i've yet to read any other ideas except tired, old insults

I've yet to read anything which even begins to adequately outline the potential risks posed by this legislation. Not all swaps are credit default swaps. In fact, very few swaps are credit default swaps which are popularly attributed to the "bail outs" or forced liquidity measures. Further, derivatives are not inherently risky. Derivatives were created to mitigate or "hedge" risk. The NPR article read to me like the equivalent of "derivatives bad" and based on what I've linked below, failed to actually explain which parties want the regulation on swaps lifted.

 

One big concern for large banks and some smaller ones is that the Securities and Exchange Commission hasn’t finished most of its Dodd-Frank rules governing securities-based swaps, which makes up the bulk of the business banks must exile. Without those rules in place, bank officials say they can’t make informed decisions about the best way to go about spinning off the banished swaps, including what kind of entity to put them in.

 

Many regional banks, which don’t typically book a lot of business in the swaps explicitly targeted by the provision, want more time in part so they can get and respond to more clarity from regulators on which swaps can stay and which must go. Among their questions is what a bank needs to do to demonstrate that a swap is being used to hedge its own risk and what type of swaps, among the hundreds of different types of customized derivatives products, is considered as a permitted interest-rate swap. Banking regulators have yet to offer guidance or a rule clarifying the law, bank officials say.

 

http://www.wsj.com/a...rule-1414677032

 

Looks more to me like a response to heavy handed and poorly defined legislation than a move to make bigger, riskier bets. Its easy to say that this gives big banks a license to gamble with Uncle Sam's backing, but anyone with some financial background immediately asks "which derivatives are we talking about?". Saying "no swaps" sounds to me like taking away a major tool in limiting risk. Again, most swaps limit exposure. CDS was an arcane and almost extinct tool before AIG (which isn't a bank) started backing every tranche of CDO, CLO, CMO 30 times over. I'd agree that banks shouldn't be able to write options on publicly traded securities, credit defaults, or effectively place bets with federally insured funds, but there is definitely a place for derivatives.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Jauronimo

[birdog1960]

;

2) Where is the debate or actual argument?

 

When asked in regard to any statement it is 100% ignored. Birddog was asked:

 

 

He didn't reply.

 

also...GG made a point that was solid, rational and simple. It was ignored. It was ignored because it made sense.

 

I guess I don't see where the arguments are taking place and instead just seeing a pile on against a statement without actual solutions. a debate is only worthwhile if you can offer a solution.

.

actually, i did reply, concisely with a quote from the reference link.

 

but i agree with your mattress thinking. this is a game for insiders as larry summers so threateningly told warren. what chance does the average joe have? better to hold on to what you have than lose it to the game makers.

 

I've yet to read anything which even begins to adequately outline the potential risks posed by this legislation. Not all swaps are credit default swaps. In fact, very few swaps are credit default swaps which are popularly attributed to the "bail outs" or forced liquidity measures. Further, derivatives are not inherently risky. Derivatives were created to mitigate or "hedge" risk. The NPR article read to me like the equivalent of "derivatives bad" and based on what I've linked below, failed to actually explain which parties want the regulation on swaps lifted.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.wsj.com/a...rule-1414677032

 

Looks more to me like a response to heavy handed and poorly defined legislation than a move to make bigger, riskier bets. Its easy to say that this gives big banks a license to gamble with Uncle Sam's backing, but anyone with some financial background immediately asks "which derivatives are we talking about?". Saying "no swaps" sounds to me like taking away a major tool in limiting risk. Again, most swaps limit exposure. CDS was an arcane and almost extinct tool before AIG (which isn't a bank) started backing every tranche of CDO, CLO, CMO 30 times over. I'd agree that banks shouldn't be able to write options on publicly traded securities, credit defaults, or effectively place bets with federally insured funds, but there is definitely a place for derivatives.

so if it's about small banks why did this occur? http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/wall-st-wins-a-round-in-a-dodd-frank-fight/?_r=0 Edited December 15, 2014 by birdog1960

[Jauronimo]

shhh, I am trying to make a point

 

don't introduce logic here, it's not your place. Remember, you're the one to lampoon. You're the Diseny Character that comes in and humbly says "gee, I don't think so, _____ is a good idea because I think its better then the popular opinion."

 

That's where the upstanding people of debate enter in and say you're so wrong you could not be more wronger. But, Jauronimo forgets I actually can make a point. In fact, I have three very important points to ask him.

 

1) I don't know much about this whole case and situation and want to engage in debate. I have seen 2 links in this thread. One by the OP and one by Jauronimo. Both of those are just two sides of an opinion. One side per political alignment, you could say. So, the other 27 replies - 2 of mine = 25 - 5 replies of that... 20. 20 posts and nothing debated. Nothing but a disagreement between the OP and Jauronimo. Should one want to be educated on this subject they have two choices in this thread to generate argument.

 

Now of course, you should say I should take my own time and educate myself on the matter to form an opinion and as soon as I do that then I will either be the mainstream here or simply some form of uneducated.

;

2) Where is the debate or actual argument?

 

When asked in regard to any statement it is 100% ignored. Birddog was asked:

 

 

He didn't reply.

 

also...GG made a point that was solid, rational and simple. It was ignored. It was ignored because it made sense.

 

I guess I don't see where the arguments are taking place and instead just seeing a pile on against a statement without actual solutions. a debate is only worthwhile if you can offer a solution.

 

 

In my case, I say deregulate the banks, let them destroy themselves in the first place. putting a firewall or protection to the consumer is only going to go so far because the consumer will now only be protected so far until the banks screw up again and they're bailed out again. of course, that may take 3 more decades, but it will happen and the short term protection the consumer has in the meantime limiting their exposure in assets is ultimately punished when taxpayer money goes to fix the wrongs that were there since the beginning.

 

if the banks would have been allowed to fail at least there would have been progress. this was like taking a dirty pair of britches that didn't get clean in the first cycle and throwing them back in again for another go around.

 

but, yep, i'm a simple country folk with all my money in the mattress and mason jars buried in the yard with my IRA invested in to limited edition dale earnhardt trading cards.

 

and of course i am too stupid to form an opinion on this but with any type of regulation there is going to be a heavy investment in undermining those and makes the institutions much more capable of corruption due to the lack of transparency. at some point those regulations will be outdated and new policies will be cast to adjust for what has already been an issue.

Wrong. One side from someone who works in finance and thought the NPR article was a total puff piece and one side from birdog who doesn't hold my industry in such high regard.

 

Not an opinion.

 

Got one thing right.

 

More cop outs. Not an opinion.

[birdog1960]

Wrong. One side from someone who works in finance and thought the NPR article was a total puff piece and one side from birdog who doesn't hold my industry in such high regard.

 

Not an opinion.

 

Got one thing right.

 

More cop outs. Not an opinion.

so what about the dismay of the vice chairman of the fed in the NYT article? is that not pertinent opinion?

[IDBillzFan]

My question is has anyone changed anyone's mind about anything ever in this forum.

 

Yes. I used to think Exiled was the biggest screw-loose nutbag dumbass here, and gatorman changed my mind about that.

[Jauronimo]

actually, i did reply, concisely with a quote from the reference link.

 

but i agree with your mattress thinking. this is a game for insiders as larry summers so threateningly told warren. what chance does the average joe have? better to hold on to what you have than lose it to the game makers.

 

so if it's about small banks why did this occur? http://dealbook.nyti...ank-fight/?_r=0

Can't small and large banks oppose this legislation for reasons I've already provided? First line of the WSJ article lays it all out. Big banks always hated Volcker.

 

so what about the dismay of the vice chairman of the fed in the NYT article? is that not pertinent opinion?

What about it? Whats the context of that comment? What about everything I just discussed? Like specifics.

 

I'm really not interested in limiting this discussion solely to an appeal to authority based on who's for it and who's against it.

[birdog1960]

Can't small and large banks oppose this legislation for reasons I've already provided? First line of the WSJ article lays it all out. Big banks always hated Volcker.

 

 

What about it? Whats the context of that comment? What about everything I just discussed? Like specifics.

 

I'm really not interested in limiting this discussion solely to an appeal to authority based on who's for it and who's against it.

and who looks after the interests of everyman here? surely not the banks big or small. this is about what is best for them and their influence on legislation despite their recent meltdown. your industry is shameless but we already knew that. what we didn't know is who in gov't would take them on. see that incredulous look on dimon's face in the nyt pic? that needs to be wiped clean. i'm inclined to support anybody materially or even symbolically pledged to do it.

 

Can't small and large banks oppose this legislation for reasons I've already provided? First line of the WSJ article lays it all out. Big banks always hated Volcker.

 

 

What about it? Whats the context of that comment? What about everything I just discussed? Like specifics.

 

I'm really not interested in limiting this discussion solely to an appeal to authority based on who's for it and who's against it.

i'd say the vice chair of the fed is an appealable authority. he questions the authority of the big banks to influence legislation in the shadow of a recent epic failure. it's a valid salient point. Edited December 16, 2014 by birdog1960

[Jauronimo]

and who looks after the interests of everyman here? surely not the banks big or small. this is what is about what is best for them and their influence on legislation despite their recent meltdown. your industry is shameless but we already knew that. what we didn't know is whoo in gov't would take them on. see that incredulous look on dimon's face in the nyt pic? that needs to be wiped clean. i'm inclined to support anybody materially or even symbolically pledged to do it.

In other words you don't care about the regulation beyond the fact that financial institutes hate it, you don't have any interest in what it does and what it doesn't do, you aren't concerned as to what financial products are covered and which aren't even if these instruments may be used to limit the risk of assets insured by the FDIC, you have no interest in the design or efficacy of the original bill, you're just anti-finance and banking.

 

You're outraged but you have no idea whether its justified and you do not care to find the truth. I see I'm catching more flies with honey.