How much responsibility do overzealous homeowners bear for the 08 crash?

[DEAD7]

Not taking part in this circular argument again. We had a blueprint that worked in the past and it can be supplemented quite well with increased capital requirements and better risk management standards for banks through Basel. The benefits being greater than the costs is self-evident when you look at the global economy and which areas have thrived utilizing these management structures.

Fair enough, but I believe liability to be a better deterrent than regulation





side note: I have the book dl'd and plan to get to it. Right now i'm struggling through Capital in the 21st century.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Fair enough, but I believe liability to be a better deterrent than regulation





side note: I have the book dl'd and plan to get to it. Right now i'm struggling through Capital in the 21st century.

So instead of regulating banks directly, youre going to regulate what kind of management structures are allowed and let the problems sort themselves out with no predictable forecast of the consequences

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's legal to build a pipeline with cheap ass materials and be like when it bursts but we're not lawyers arguing legality are we? We're arguing history and culpability and clearly the homeowners in relation to the banks are ants to bears.

Thats not legal though

Try again though.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Im just responding to his irrelevant commentary. Of course, if you took a loan out that you couldnt afford, you have personal responsibility. The root problems were much more structural and, in my ways, inevitable, though. A healthy financial system is in our best interests, so steering the conversation away from meaningful reform and focusing on the average citizen overextending himself in buying a house is a waste of our time.

so why can't we talk about consumer intelligence though?

Or is that off the table?

 

[DEAD7]

So instead of regulating banks directly, youre going to regulate what kind of management structures are allowed and let the problems sort themselves out with no predictable forecast of the consequences

Making execs and shareholders fully liable for any losses and/or lawsuits filed against them, would go a lot further in preventing unsavory business practices, than regulations. That's all I'm saying.
I think sending a few execs/shareholder's to jail and forcing them to pay out damages to those preyed upon would have been a better scenario than the one we witnessed.
Keep in mind they are the ones writing the regulations , and even the good regulations are temporary at best. As we have seen.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

so why can't we talk about consumer intelligence though?

Or is that off the table?

The expertise here lies with the banks. Given their business model, they need to be able to use whatever protocols they have in place in order to decide whether or not they should make a loan. To me, it is obvious that, when given a chance to borrow money over their ability to pay it back, the uninformed public will do that. The way I see it, it is up to the commercial banks to stick to sound business practices and limit their exposure to these kind of situations. We're both sitting here saying that the other person's point of view is obvious and we should be discussing the other side. The real power in the market lies in the banks, so I just think the discussion should be on what we can improve there.

 

[Broke Wave]

Thats not legal though

Try again though.

... It is legal...

The government reduces regulatory requirements for pipelines to the point where they are shytty... the company creates a shytty pipelines... it bursts... happened recently...happens in some variation in every industry...

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Making execs and shareholders fully liable for any losses and/or lawsuits filed against them, would go a lot further in preventing unsavory business practices, than regulations. That's all I'm saying.
I think sending a few execs/shareholder's to jail and forcing them to pay out damages to those preyed upon would have been a better scenario than the one we witnessed.
Keep in mind they are the ones writing the regulations , and even the good regulations are temporary at best. As we have seen.

Why the fukk would anyone become a shareholder, have no control over the day-to-day operations of a company and take on full liability Why would that person go to jail when they weren't responsible for another party's crimes

Fine, put some executives in jail, but the reason they haven't gone is because it is a very difficult case to prove that they were directly responsible for any kind of fukkery going on.

I don't understand your point at all. You're saying you want to discuss the pros and cons of doing something like this. The con is that you destroy the entire way business is conducted and ruin the capital markets we have in place right now for almost no benefit. These people are writing the regulations, so why the fukk would they go along with this plan Why are you speaking on how effective the regulations we have in place are right now when you don't know anything about them specifically and only talk in philosophical terms Again, what specific problems do you have with Dodd-Frank and Basel III? If you can't think of anything tangible, why are you putting your two cents in on financial reform

 

[DEAD7]

... It is legal...

The government reduces regulatory requirements for pipelines to the point where they are shytty... the company creates a shytty pipelines... it bursts... happened recently...happens in some variation in every industry...

Then what happens?

 

[Broke Wave]

Then what happens?

Then more often that not they pay for the cleanup and are litigated by families effected, but the true environmental cost is often never covered by the offender in question. I agree with your post earlier that liability in many cases is much more effective than regulation. If companies are held accountable and liable for the full cost of their inappropriate behavior they are less likely to continue that behavior. A simple and rigid regulatory framework coupled with total liability is what I would call an idea oversight situation.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Shameless

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Then more often that not they pay for the cleanup and are litigated by families effected, but the true environmental cost is often never covered by the offender in question. I agree with your post earlier that liability in many cases is much more effective than regulation. If companies are held accountable and liable for the full cost of their inappropriate behavior they are less likely to continue that behavior. A simple and rigid regulatory framework coupled with total liability is what I would call an idea oversight situation.

If you're going to take away the main benefit from having this kind of organizational structure with limited liability, then you are essentially making it a useless construct. Goodbye public ownership of any major businesses in the US.

 

[Broke Wave]

If you're going to take away the main benefit from having this kind of organizational structure with limited liability, then you are essentially making it a useless construct. Goodbye public ownership of any major businesses in the US.

I'm cool with that honestly. Public ownership is only good in my opinion to raise funds for business expansion and the owners benefit that way. Otherwise I feel like these legal loopholes are killing us for real.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm cool with that honestly. Public ownership is only good in my opinion to raise funds for business expansion and the owners benefit that way. Otherwise I feel like these legal loopholes are killing us for real.

Dude, do you pray to Marx or something?

 

[DEAD7]

Why the fukk would anyone become a shareholder, have no control over the day-to-day operations of a company and take on full liability Why would that person go to jail when they weren't responsible for another party's crimes

Fine, put some executives in jail, but the reason they haven't gone is because it is a very difficult case to prove that they were directly responsible for any kind of fukkery going on.

I don't understand your point at all. You're saying you want to discuss the pros and cons of doing something like this. The con is that you destroy the entire way business is conducted and ruin the capital markets we have in place right now for almost no benefit. These people are writing the regulations, so why the fukk would they go along with this plan Why are you speaking on how effective the regulations we have in place are right now when you don't know anything about them specifically and only talk in philosophical terms Again, what specific problems do you have with Dodd-Frank and Basel III? If you can't think of anything tangible, why are you putting your two cents in on financial reform

I never said they were ineffective, or said I have a problem with Dodd - Frank, I said...

Making execs and shareholders fully liable for any losses and/or lawsuits filed against them, would go a lot further in preventing unsavory business practices, than regulations. That's all I'm saying.

I never stated which way the cost benefit analysis would go, I asked what you thought they were, so i could compare... what is so offensive about that?
I even prefaced my comments with IMHO...


... and you wouldn't be overhauling business, you would be removing the limited part of current liability. If your argument is that people wont invest, I will look into it, and see how much water that claim holds.

More over, I think limited liability should be done away with whether dodd-frank is reinstated or not.