why do people keep coming up with theories on the drawing board instead of actually looking at what happens in the industry? more nonsense about gubmint regulations being the only barrier to entry

It was a /s post

I agree they aren't the only barriers to entry.
That doesn't mean they aren't barriers to entry, nor do I share your anti-logic sentiment.

Some barriers to entry are good. There should be some barriers, like licensing for lawyers, doctors, social workers, public accountants, etc.

Also A company should have to have the means to do what they're doing, including being able to clean up after themselves and certain measures in place that they do not make such a mess in the first place. Even with all we've done, we still have problems because some unethical fucks cut corners....but environmental pollution is considerably lower than it would be, if your into that data stuff.

The regulations separating savings and loans activities from commercial bank activities worked for our mortgage system until regulations were removed and allowed S&Ls to engage in commercial activities, and then 75% of S&Ls mysterious crash over the first five years of the early 1980s. Later regulations were further removed and within a decade our banking system needed a bailout...a bailout that cost much much more than previously existing regulations would have cost. And it isn't like profits are down...even with all of the regulations "strangling business" profits are at an all time high.

Why wouldn't the system have rules? Economic regulations are much less of a burden to freedom than positive law in general.

you are correct sir.



also very correct

This post was edited by card_sultan on Nov 14 2014 07:09pm

In other words, special protections for your job to prevent people from competing with you.
because lord knows without a government approved stamp someone is incapable of making their own decisions about which accountant or lawyer or social worker to go to and no one would require them to be qualified for their jobs.



I actually agree here, if not with the extent and some of the particular methods that are being implemented.


You are regularly obliterated with the truth every time you try to blame the recession on "deregulation". You should be able to recite the correct rebuttal by heart by now.

The banks also didn't "need" to be bailed out.

Profits being high for some corporations does not mean the economy isn't being seriously inhibited and damaged.
The barriers to entry and special rules that people love to tack on are a large reason certain corporations are able to make so much money while other people are squashed and having a hard time finding a job or opening a business.




QFT

I would have blamed the last recession on Bush's nievity and deregulation.

what would you say the cause was?

you might not understand the value of licenses right now but once you're old enough to start driving you'll be glad people driving on the roads with you have some idea of what they're doing

Largely due to massive inflation of the money supply/artificially low interest rates and rampant government intervention in the housing market.
This distorted the market, created a housing bubble, and encouraged, mandated and incentivized risky/bad behavior in specific sectors of the economy.

My current governor played a large role in such policies. He was in charge of HUD under Clinton. He openly bragged about his policies creating billions of dollars worth of loans given to people in risky situations that wouldn't have otherwise qualified for loans.
To put it all on Bush alone would be terribly wrong. Terrible policies existed previously and the bubble was building up for a while.
Simply having good intentions doesn't mean the policy will have good results economically.

Skinned focuses on the symptoms of such policies along with a verifiably false version of events.
ex: he usually blames the "deregulation" of glass-steagall that separated commercial and investment banking, yet the big banks that were failing most prominently did so in ways that were perfectly legal well before the repeal of glass-steagall provisions, while the major players that were heavily involved in both aspects fared better, and tried to resist bailouts.

Another popular scapegoat is "greed" or "irrational exuberance", yet why did everyone get so "greedy" and "irrational" in one sector all at the same time?
It only makes sense when you look at the bigger picture and identify the cause.

A few sentences probably won't be too compelling, its a complicated issue, but I encourage you to investigate further with an open mind if you are interested.



Another vapid insult paired with a weak analogy. A+

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 14 2014 09:08pm