The FDIC

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Wgb,

How bad would things have to get for you to decide that the free market is best?

I'm not sure what you mean there. Is there ever a black and white choice between "free-market" and whatever it's antithesis is? When I think of a "free market" I think of something that regulates itself to a degree, and that may benefit or thrive in terms of stability or competitiveness from a higher statutory standard of regulation in some areas. A higher standard of regulation doesnt render it "unfree," it just raises the standards of competition.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

Banking moral hazard= nothing.

Accounts are insured and banks are bailed out. Either way the taxpayers subsidize the mess.

Canadian and Swiss banking practices are far superior.

Originally Posted by rivergator

doesn't Canada have the CDIC?

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Shhh, don't let the facts get in the way, this guy is on a roll.

http://www.cdic.ca/Pages/default.aspx

Crickets...

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

That was not really meant at you. I picked your post to respond to this thread because it went well with my thoughts.

Sorry,I apologize, I took it the wrong way....bad morning so far surf.

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Shhh, don't let the facts get in the way, this guy is on a roll.

http://www.cdic.ca/Pages/default.aspx

Reading deficiencies... Never said the cdic does not exist or they don't insure up to 100k. I said the Swiss and Canadadian banking Practices were superior. You may also look at reserve requirements, loan requirements, asset valuations of marked to market and marked to book and .... Drum Roll please, How about the number of Canadian and Swiss bank failures compared to the US.. Crickets indeed. Moral hazard is real. Their banks are not casinos.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

Reading deficiencies... Never said the cdic does not exist or they don't insure up to 100k. I said the Swiss and Canadadian banking Practices were superior. You may also look at reserve requirements, loan requirements, asset valuations of marked to market and marked to book and .... Drum Roll please, How about the number of Canadian and Swiss bank failures compared to the US.. Crickets indeed. Moral hazard is real. Their banks are not casinos.

Burke started off this thread claiming that depositers should not get their money back if their bank fails, but the FDIC does insure that money. So does the CDIC, right?
As for your other points, I don't know anything about it. Does Canada have stricter reserve requirements, loan requirements, etc?

[T3goalie]

River- Ok. I understood your response was to me not Burke. FYI they have vastly different banking practices and it is why they have so few failures and why there has been so much money that has left the US.
_______
In re Burke, he has a broader point in re: accountability and that is that without risk of loss and moral hazard you have "bank casinos" and that is exactly what occurred a few years ago in the commercial and investment banks. People forget that the combination of investment bankers, such as goldman and bear stern, being allowed to go public combined along with the stripping of glass steagal created a casino. Banks are now bailed out on both ends of a transaction.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

Reading deficiencies... Never said the cdic does not exist or they don't insure up to 100k. I said the Swiss and Canadadian banking Practices were superior. You may also look at reserve requirements, loan requirements, asset valuations of marked to market and marked to book and .... Drum Roll please, How about the number of Canadian and Swiss bank failures compared to the US.. Crickets indeed. Moral hazard is real. Their banks are not casinos.

It is more accurate to say it is a writing deficiency on your part.

Read your post again. If you did not intend to imply that Canada has a superior banking system because it does not have its own version of the FDIC, then you perhaps need to be more clear.

Since you seem to be an expert on the superiority of Canadian banking practices, I would love to hear the specifics as to why it is superior, since obviously it has its own version of the FDIC, we can scratch that one off the list.

[Burke]

Wgb,

"Regulation," as the term is most commonly used today, is the violation of the rights of individuals for some supposed public good. Handcuffing those who are violating the rights of no one for the benefit of others.

If I want to use a certain drug because I determine that its in my best interests, what business does the govt have prohibiting it or requiring prescriptions?

Regulation, in this sense of the word, is different from ordinary criminal laws which punish rights violations after they have occurred.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Wgb,

"Regulation," as the term is most commonly used today, is the violation of the rights of individuals for some supposed public good. Handcuffing those who are violating the rights of no one for the benefit of others.

If I want to use a certain drug because I determine that its in my best interests, what business does the govt have prohibiting it or requiring prescriptions?

Regulation, in this sense of the word, is different from ordinary criminal laws which punish rights violations after they have occurred.

So, wouldn't regulations like accurate labeling of ingredients and truthful packaging of drugs give people better ability to determine what is in their "best interest?" Most people don't think the right of the seller to package his products however he/she wants supercedes my right to know with a high degree of certainty what I am purchasing and putting in my body. That seems better than me pursuing criminal/civil charges against someone who was negligent or malicious in their sale of a product after I've already been injured or wronged.

[Minister_of_Information]

The belief that the laissez faire is always the answer is as misguided as the belief that the government is always the answer.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The belief that the laissez faire is always the answer is as misguided as the belief that the government is always the answer.

yep

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Sorry,I apologize, I took it the wrong way....bad morning so far surf.

lol same here and i should of worded it better so that you didn't feel i was attacking your post.

[Burke]

Wgb,

"So, wouldn't regulations like accurate labeling of ingredients and truthful packaging of drugs give people better ability to determine what is in their "best interest?" Most people don't think the right of the seller to package his products however he/she wants supercedes my right to know with a high degree of certainty what I am purchasing and putting in my body. That seems better than me pursuing criminal/civil charges against someone who was negligent or malicious in their sale of a product after I've already been injured or wronged."

Fraud is a crime which can and should be punished and, upon a proper showing of probable cause, etc., enjoined civilly.

But you have right to force others to provide you with anything. If you don't like their packaging, use another product.

And frankly, regulation has never been conducted toward any kind of public good. It's just another way politicians and their pals force the lives of others for their own benefit, in a million different ways.

If you really think regulation of the legal profession protects you, I have some swampland for you.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Wgb,

"So, wouldn't regulations like accurate labeling of ingredients and truthful packaging of drugs give people better ability to determine what is in their "best interest?" Most people don't think the right of the seller to package his products however he/she wants supercedes my right to know with a high degree of certainty what I am purchasing and putting in my body. That seems better than me pursuing criminal/civil charges against someone who was negligent or malicious in their sale of a product after I've already been injured or wronged."

Fraud is a crime which can and should be punished and, upon a proper showing of probable cause, etc., enjoined civilly.

But you have right to force others to provide you with anything. If you don't like their packaging, use another product.

And frankly, regulation has never been conducted toward any kind of public good. It's just another way politicians and their pals force the lives of others for their own benefit, in a million different ways.

If you really think regulation of the legal profession protects you, I have some swampland for you.

That's just deadender talk, Burke. Very few people think they are losing any freedom in requiring that people who want to profit from selling drugs or food be made to lable their product accurately. In capitalism, we call this the cost of doing business. Moreover, honest vendors who do sell food and drugs don't have to spend resources convincing people that their products are safe/accurately labled in a "laissez-faire" environment where hucksters and frauds tarnish the prestige of the entire industry. Likewise, consumers of these products dont have to use extra time and resources to weed out the hucksters from the legit.

[Burke]

I have no problem with the idea that labels should contain truthful info. To do otherwise is fraud.

I have a problem with the idea that the govt should be requiring labels at all or compelling disclosures of the contents.

If you want labeled stuff, buy from dealers who label.

Grow your own stuff, if you don't like it.

But you have no right to force others to provide you with things on terms you dictate.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Burke

I have no problem with the idea that labels should contain truthful info. To do otherwise is fraud.

I have a problem with the idea that the govt should be requiring labels at all or compelling disclosures of the contents.

If you want labeled stuff, buy from dealers who label.

Grow your own stuff, if you don't like it.

But you have no right to force others to provide you with things on terms you dictate.

Sadly for you, my friend, you were born in the wrong century.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Burke

I have no problem with the idea that labels should contain truthful info. To do otherwise is fraud.

I have a problem with the idea that the govt should be requiring labels at all or compelling disclosures of the contents.

If you want labeled stuff, buy from dealers who label.

Grow your own stuff, if you don't like it.

But you have no right to force others to provide you with things on terms you dictate.

What you seem to be advocating is a really chaotic and unstable market, whether its in monetary policy or regulation in the name of a really sh$tty and childish sort of freedom (Whaaah! You cant make me do anything!). What you dont seem to realize is that a single currency and sensible regulations often make for a more stable and efficient market, and a better allocation of resources and productivity. That's not to say these things are perfect or without flaws, but they are quite often better than the alternative.

[Burke]

Hudson writes,

"Sadly for you, my friend, you were born in the wrong century."

Ayn Rand wrote,

"Those who fight for the future live in it today."

[Burke]

Wgb,

My folks were in the citrus business, but my mother mostly ran it and my father had a day job as a pesticide residue inspector, making sure farmers didn't put to much pesticide on their crops.

One day my dad told me that his real job was maintaining the political contacts between his boss the commissioner of agriculture. And the LAST thing he was supposed to do was to find too much pesticide.

Over 50 years later and after practicing law for nearly 45 years, I can tell you that that is what "regulation" is in principle everywhere all the time.

Anyone who says otherwise is naive, dishonest, or both.

[HudsonGator]

What a warped view of government and society you have. I honestly feel sorry for you.