It sure would help if you stop making blanket statements. What rules are there that stop you from owning a shop? What's your definition of excessive regulations? Why are they excessive?

And tell me about the fishys that turned the oasis into a desert.

If you mean letting the job creators write there own rules, are you crazy? That's what got us in deep do-do in the first place.

FACTS, not theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

It sure would help if you stop making blanket statements. What rules are there that stop you from owning a shop? Whats your definition of excessive regulations? Why are they excessive?

And tell me about the fishys that turned the oasis into a desert.

If you mean letting the job creators write there own rules, are you crazy?? Thats what got us in deep do-do in the first place.

FACTS, not theory.

---

The battle intensified back in August 2007 when Federal Judge Wanger ordered as much as a 50% reduction in water allocated to serve the rest of the state (like Los Angeles) and protect endangered fish populations -- and likewise the commercial and recreational fishing industries.


Ref:

The Water Update - News21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

And tell me about the fishys that turned the oasis into a desert..

---

Thanks to the EPA and the Endangered Species Act, most of the water used to irrigate the central California valley has been cut off from farmers to protect the Delta Smelt. Look it up. Better yet, here it is in pictures.

Hello again,

Yeah, sometimes those tree huggers get carried away... But, I'm FOR smoke stack scrubbers, aren't you?? That's why we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

excon

Carried away ? The unemployment rate of farm workers in the San Joaquin is about 40% . They turned one of the most productive agricultural areas of the nation into desert .
Scrubbers to eliminate sulfer dioxide emissions by contrast are logical regulations ,and you won't find anyone except perhaps the Ronulans who object to them .

What regulation stops you from owning a shop? Making regulations based on safety concerns is one thing, but making policy decisions based on how to allocate limited resources is quite another. Somebody is sure to lose in that fight. And don't they always go with the economics? Sort of like downsizing, by laying workers off. A business decision, about the money. Evidently fishing is a greater business interest than poor farmers are.

Quote:

---

What regulation stops you from owning a shop?

---

There are a number of Federal and State agencies overseeing my industry. Some of the regulation is absolutely necessary ;others are overkill and burdensome. As I mentioned... smaller operations are opting out because of it.

If you are a banker, you need all the regulations you can get, the same goes for wall street.

I'm not ;but the same situation applies. There are some community banks that are giving up their charter over Dodd-Frank . All that will be left is banks"too big to fail" .

These were the banks that traditionally makes loans to small businesses. The system thus spirals downward
Small banks say new mortgage regulations too onerous - USATODAY.com

Community Banking & The Impact of Financial Regulations - Guidon Performance Solutions

Community Banking & The Impact of Financial Regulations - Guidon Performance Solutions

Quote:

---

If Dodd-Frank has a silver lining, it will be in greater transparency for consumers.

Part of the regulatory burden, Wince said, entails revamping documents for products such as mortgages to make them more understandable for the public.

“Banks are feeling the pain and burden of trying to absorb it,” he said. “But, ultimately, the customers are going to be better off.”

---

Regulations can be quite beneficial for protecting people like you and me... consumers. Mortgages are rip offs, banks having been making 3 times what a house is worth for longer than I can remember.

Was that you that made the argument that WE should live within our means, and not borrow from another country, and get in debt? Why shouldn't banks do the same, not borrow OR lend, more than they have?

Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough.

The remedy to the banks was to hold them responsible for their actions . If there was malfeasance (and I believe there was ) then why no prosecutions ?
You don't have to answer that .I know the reason... too many lawmakers would go down with the bankers.

I think its more likely that letting the banks fall in anything but a controlled way is a global catastrophe, and I think that eventually the will fall and be replaced.

But that's what deregulation bought us over time. Economic catastrophe, and since we didn't learn from the last time, we repeated the same mistake.

I've made the case more than once that the banking problem was caused by government mandates and not over regulation. I'll again refer to NY Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson's book 'Reckless Endangerment ' and the left wing Village Voice expose on then HUD boss Andrew Cuomo.

Also the guarantee of a gvt bailout influenced their behavior . It's called eliminating moral hazard .

The banking problem was caused by greed and failure of regulation. The government created the environment in which it might happen but it did not direct the bankers to act in the manner they did. What the bankers did was a ploy to remove questionable assets from their balance sheets

Quote:

---

but it did not direct the bankers to act in the manner they did

---

The heck it didn't . The government almost left the financial institutions with no choice but to bundle crappy housing loans they forced them into making ,into investment instruments . In hearing after hearing Sen Chris Dodd and Rep Barney Frank examined the activities of the banking industry (especially Fannie Mae and FreddieMac ) and found they were acting in a proper manner.

''These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis.. 'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''[Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, at the time ,the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee]

Frank was arguing for an increase in the size of their combined $1.4 trillion portfolios in sub-prime holdings right up to the day they were bailed out.

That hardly gives license to the deception of selling junk, with gold platings, and saying its solid gold, and the ratings firms were as complicit in this scam as the banks. As bad is the pricing controls that speculators perpetrate on the world markets, another clear case of greed, and deception.

While speculation is necessary for stability, just like selling houses, greed, and over reach has there own consequences, as we have seen.

Tom why defend the indefensible? The bankers were culpable, the government niaive and the regulators out to lunch. It is all very academic now as we face a crisis brought on by failure of government of a different kind. Obama is not responsible for the GFC anymore than Merkel/Sarcozy are responsible for the shambles in Greece but we are all going to feel the impact. You think things are bad now, let's revisit it in 12 months time

I defend nothing .Malefeasance needs to be prosecuted . Ialready said that... Ask yourself why these hated bankers walk free today in an Obama America? He's the one who defends them . He told them he was the only one between them and the mob with the pitch forks .
He has retained their operatives at the highest levels of the White House . This week he told them the price of his protection.
A new book about the inner sanctum of the Administration reveals that the President ignored the advice of some of his closest financial advisors because the President runs the White House like a 'good ole boys club' . Perhaps we wouldn't be in such a sad shape if Christina Romer had some input .
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...re-oval/42712/

As far as the Europeans ;the EU is a failed and flawed construct that is only as finacially sound as it's weakest links.. If they were going to unify then they needed more than a colorful paper currency as a bond. We of course have seen the continent united before... but that was at times when Empires imposed their will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As far as the Europeans ;the EU is a failed and flawed construct that is only as finacially sound as it's weakest links ..If they were going to unify then they needed more than a colorful paper currency as a bond. We of course have seen the continent united before ... but that was at times when Empires imposed their will.

---

There are empires on both sides of the Atlantic Tom. What is the US other than an empire with a common currency? The EU idea is flawed because they have allowed the currency to be used by countries who don't possess a common fiscal system.

The US$ and The AU$ are used in some countries as their currency but there is no attempt at fiscal integration. The EURO was a backdoor takeover bid by the stronger nations. What they could not achieve by conquest they attempted by other means. I say let the Greeks fail and withdraw from the EU. They are a basket case economy anyway

Quote:

---

What is the US other than an empire with a common currency?

---

Common language ;common culture , common national identity... there are other things..
We did not start that way . But the US changed from 'these' united states to THE UNITED STATES .