Elizabeth Warren elected, a crushing defeat for big banks?


by gravenewworld
Tags: banks, crushing, defeat, elected, elizabeth, warren
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#19
Dec31-12, 03:05 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
... Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them.
Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing.
ParticleGrl
ParticleGrl is offline
#20
Dec31-12, 10:50 PM
P: 663
I think its a sad day when a moderate republican is replaced by an extreme left wing. We dont need more far left or far right in congress.
I reject your premise- Warren isn't "an extreme left wing." Yes, her academic work has suggested that banks have committed some abuses, but seriously- after the 2008 meltdown I think even many conservatives would agree that abuses happened.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#21
Jan1-13, 04:31 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
I'd agree that abuses occurred ... mainly by government, the Fed, government pseudo banks such as Freddie and Fannie, and on the part of the government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.
Jack21222
Jack21222 is offline
#22
Jan1-13, 04:33 PM
P: 771
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
...on the part of the government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.
Lol! That's like blaming the police for not preventing a murder rather than the murderer.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#23
Jan1-13, 04:49 PM
P: 2,163
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing (as seizing banks' assets and nationalizing them.)
Regulation without bound would amount to murdering bankers and their families. Has someone proposed regulation without bound?

Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
... government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.
How would multiplying their numbers and powers reward them? Wouldn't a pay increase be more effective?
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#24
Jan1-13, 05:28 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
Regulation without bound would amount to murdering bankers and their families.
Maybe, depending on the regulator. Much, much more likely in my view would be bankers kept healthy and made toadies of regulators and their political masters, i.e. all made one indistinguishable mass, which was my original point.

Has someone proposed regulation without bound?
Nope. But infinite regulation is not required, is it, just galloping increases to achieve an effect similar to nationalizing a bank.

How would multiplying their numbers and powers reward them? Wouldn't a pay increase be more effective?
No. Not in government, at least per my reading and interaction with it. Higher government salaries attract attention and make easy political targets.

So instead the game is the control as much power as possible. I've met several government program managers proud not of their performance but that their program size has only increased. This is an immediate reward in itself, but the power can be and is readily monetized by simply moving from government to the private sector (and back again) where colossal salaries or book advances are offered for connections that can avoid Sauron's eye, or direct it instead on a competitor. Or, power is monetized by simply prompting political contributions.

I went on above not to suggest complete laissez faire when it comes to banks and securities firms, but to draw attention equal or more attention to government's flaws. My plan would be to break up the banks so that any one or dozen failures would non-catastrophic for the country, and then to otherwise leave them be.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#25
Jan1-13, 05:41 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Lol! That's like blaming the police for not preventing a murder rather than the murderer.
Do you not see *any* downside to more regulation? Even police chiefs are fired occasionally for bad outcomes. Not so federal regulators.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#26
Jan1-13, 05:56 PM
P: 2,163
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Nope.
In that case, your argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as 'slippery slope'. For example someone argues that it is good to drink water and the counterargument is that if you drank eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 you would die of it. You see how the counterargument is more of a way of avoiding the question than discussing it. I see your comments concerning regulation without bound as a similar dodge of the real question of regulation with bound.
Jack21222
Jack21222 is offline
#27
Jan1-13, 07:17 PM
P: 771
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Do you not see *any* downside to more regulation? Even police chiefs are fired occasionally for bad outcomes. Not so federal regulators.
What kind of question is this? Has anybody EVER said, in this thread or elsewhere, that there is NO downside to more regulation?
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#28
Jan3-13, 03:59 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
In that case, your argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as 'slippery slope'. For example someone argues that it is good to drink water and the counterargument is that if you drank eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 you would die of it. You see how the counterargument is more of a way of avoiding the question than discussing it. I see your comments concerning regulation without bound as a similar dodge of the real question of regulation with bound.
This has gone far from the original point, counter point, which was

Point: "Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them"
Counter Point: "Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing."

Or in terms of your water example above, with some context matching the regulation/nationalization points:
Point: Drinking water is perfectly safe (made by someone already guzzling a great deal of water)
Counter Point: Well hold on, drinking eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 will kill you.

Given that banking was already a very heavily regulated industry before Dodd Frank or Sen. Warren, I think pointing out the dangers of extremes is not unwarranted, and not a slippery slope argument.

I used to the phrase "without bound" to quickly show that somewhere regulation and nationalization are easily seen as equivalent. I could have said that "at some point regulation can ...", and determining that point is complicated and subjective and not that useful. More important was to shake the implied absolute claim that nationalization and regulation and always and everywhere two unrelated things regardless of the amount of regulation.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#29
Jan3-13, 04:55 PM
P: 2,163
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Point: "Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them"
Point: Drinking water is perfectly safe (made by someone already guzzling a great deal of water)
These are not comparable unless the original had said regulation is perfectly safe. Your post #19 is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#30
Jan4-13, 05:29 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
These are not comparable unless the original had said regulation is perfectly safe. Your post #19 is a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.
I don't see it that way, but I'll rephrase nonetheless:

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.
Jack21222
Jack21222 is offline
#31
Jan5-13, 12:36 AM
P: 771
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
I don't see it that way, but I'll rephrase nonetheless:

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.
But nobody's proposing anything remotely that far, particularly not Elizabeth Warren, so why are you bringing this up? Just trying to derail the thread in hopes of getting it closed or something?
AlephZero
AlephZero is offline
#32
Jan5-13, 02:36 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,339
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.
Maybe we are "divided by a common language" here, but in the UK "nationalizing" would mean all the assets and liabilities of the bank being taken into government ownership, as with Northern Rock in the UK in 2008. But that had nothing to do with regulation per se, and in fact Northern Rock has been sold back into the private banking sector (as part of the Virgin group). The primary objective was to protect retail customer confidence and stop a run on the bank, not "regulation".
turbo
turbo is offline
#33
Jan5-13, 03:56 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
One regulation that I would dearly love to see: Banks must maintain capital reserves in excess of their speculations. If their bets turn bad, it should not fall to the US taxpayers to bail them out (again!). The big banks are great at privatizing profits while socializing losses. I hope Warren and other members of the banking committee make this a top priority.
lisab
lisab is offline
#34
Jan5-13, 07:20 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,912
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
I don't see it that way, but I'll rephrase nonetheless:

Regulation of a bank at some point could become indistinguishable in effect from nationalizing a bank.
Which could be said about anything...it's the slippery slope argument, quite plainly. And it's no reason to not regulate banks, IMO.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#35
Jan6-13, 10:33 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by AlephZero View Post
Maybe we are "divided by a common language" here, but in the UK "nationalizing" would mean all the assets and liabilities of the bank being taken into government ownership, as with Northern Rock in the UK in 2008....
[my bold]. Sure, I suppose that is the common understanding, and federal regulators regularly seize financial firms in the US in the traditional sense as you describe.

The definition of 'ownership' is the problem, at least in the banking business, before anyone admits to seizing anthing. My understanding of ownership entails the ability to control a thing and especially the ability to sell it. So then, if a third party, tentatively not the owner, can
i) remove a company's officers at will without criminal charges and forward new officers of its choosing,
ii) determine the pay of the officers,
iii) in a sale of the company, demand approval of the buyer and the conditions of the sale

going on and on in a like manner about the particulars of the company's methods of doing business. At the same we see the officers of such companies moving back and forth between seniors positions of the 'third party' and the company. In these conditions the ownership of the company is less than clear to me.

Perhaps something like the above measures are necessary to prevent abuses by bankers, at least while the government is responsible for backing money, but having said that does not change the blurring of ownership in my mind.
Locrian
Locrian is offline
#36
Jan8-13, 02:54 PM
P: 1,683
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
One regulation that I would dearly love to see: Banks must maintain capital reserves in excess of their speculations.
Describe how current RBC rules fail to accomplish this at this time. Details, please.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Super Capacitor Banks, Instant Charging, Inversion, Charging Battery Banks, Capacitor Electrical Engineering 6
Elizabeth Taylor RIP General Discussion 13
RIP Elizabeth Edwards General Discussion 13
Grad school is crushing my soul. Academic Guidance 24
The crushing depths of Jupiter General Astronomy 7