Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 174

Thread: Deregulating the banks?

  1. #31

    Default

    But, but...The State is Civilization!!!




    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    ^This. 100%. Anything less is...barbaric. Brutish. Blind to individual rights, artificially organized by brute force and compulsion, and to that extent, not civilized at all.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    ^This. 100%. Anything less is...barbaric. Brutish. Blind to individual rights, artificially organized by brute force and compulsion, and to that extent, not civilized at all.
    So you guys are anarchists? I am not saying I disagree with you and in a perfect world I wouldn't think twice about agreeing with an anarchist, but I have some questions. How do you respond to arguments such as nothing would prevent you from breaking a contract with another person or business(maybe it is someone with no need of a "credit" score), or starting your own slavery organisation with thousands of members. Would mob violence for bad be met with mod violence for good? Or what if a foreign country attacks ours? With no "public" backing of force for what is agreed on as right(which includes a public defense) it seems we leave ourselves vulnerable, individually and as a society. I have always been on the government is a necessary evil side, but it isn't an open and shut case in my mind like it used to be.
    What I say is for entertainment purposes only!

    Mark 10:45 The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

    "If you want to make a lot of money, resist diversification." - Jim Rogers

  4. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary North
    Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value.

    Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value.

    I mention this, because, at some point, you will read about gold as a store of value. You will read of gold's intrinsic value. Every time you read either of these phrases, you will know that the author does not understand economic theory.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north952.html
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  5. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyW View Post
    Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.
    Banking has always been regulated by the federal government, to one extent or another, except for between 1837 and 1862. But even then the banks were regulated by the states.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Oh yeah? Well, the next time you buy apples, or anything else, sold by weight or volume at the grocery store, you will be charged a price.
    Yep because the owner place his value on the apples

    But without the owner, or anyone else placing a value on apples - it has no value
    That price will be its market value
    Not true.
    It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.

    (in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value
    No such thing as an intrinsic value.

    That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)

  7. #36

    Default

    Thanks, Enoch - very well said.

  8. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    First, you must understand that most of the mess was the result of OVER-REGULATION & government programs :
    Yes, the Glass-Steagall was repealed but it was stupid because it & FDIC were a "package-deal" regulations installed in 1933, there were two main parts to this regulation, 1) separation of commerical & investment banking 2) FDIC
    The first one was repealed & deregulated but as I've said it was a "package-deal", either they should kept both as it was or repealed both but they repealed the first which merged commercial & investment banking but FDIC was left in tact, now that is problematic, FDIC is essentially backed by Fed & taxpayers' money so with now half the regulation gone, commercial banks could take on more risks & having FDIC along with it is like telling banks - go ahead, take risks, if you make a profit you keep it & if you fail, we'll bail you out - which is why Ron Paul had voted AGAINST this "half-deregulation", both should've been repealed so that banks are on their own instead of having an explicit guarantee of Fed & taxpayers through FDIC
    Ron Paul actually didn't vote against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But he didn't vote for it, either. He was one of 15 who didn't vote.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml

    Otherwise, good post.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Yep because the owner place his value on the apples

    But without the owner, or anyone else placing a value on apples - it has no value


    Not true.
    It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.



    No such thing as an intrinsic value.

    That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)
    Okay, Black Flag. You don't like fish and you don't like apples. Some of us do. Apples have value to me. They are great with peanut butter. Those of us who like them will bid on them in the free-market and find the price in ounces of silver, gold, or whatever the apple grower and fisherman are willing to let them trade hands. You are not required to participate. After all it is a free market.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cubical View Post
    So you guys are anarchists?
    I am wary of labels -especially this one- as most people have no clue what it means other then mind-mush they have heard or read about it from the Main Stream Media.

    But anti-Statists, sure.

    I am not saying I disagree with you and in a perfect world I wouldn't think twice about agreeing with an anarchist, but I have some questions.
    Perfect worlds don't exist and are unnecessary for anarchists.

    How do you respond to arguments such as nothing would prevent you from breaking a contract with another person or business(maybe it is someone with no need of a "credit" score),
    Your word is your bond, and becomes your life.

    You cheat me, you'll never trade with me or anyone else - and you need to trade to live. That is why ostracizing was such a serious punishment - no one dealt with you any more, and that was a slow death sentence.

    or starting your own slavery organisation with thousands of members.
    Like the government does?

    Would mob violence for bad be met with mod violence for good?
    You, right now, live under a series of tradeoffs - some you probably didn't know you've made.

    You have decided to accept:
    - a pervasive, overwhelming, national, constant theft and violence on you by government - but it is more or less spread over everyone and is predictable.
    instead of:
    - a very rare, local, random, personal violence by a thug - which is directed at you personally and is unpredictable.

    You'd rather have a constant, shared by everyone, predictable knife to your throat then the random, very rare, shared by no one, unpredictable knife to your throat.

    And that's the trade off you've made.

    I'd rather deal with the other one.

    But you have to deal with one or the other.

    Or what if a foreign country attacks ours?
    ahhahahahh who?
    How are they getting here?
    And why would they attack when it is cheaper to trade?

    With no "public" backing of force for what is agreed on as right(which includes a public defense)
    Why do you assume only criminals are capable of organizing themselves, but free men are unable to organize themselves.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Okay, Black Flag. You don't like fish and you don't like apples. Some of us do.
    And as such, you place a value on them that comes from you - the individual.

    Did you read Menger? He figured that out 150 years ago.

    Apples have value to me. They are great with peanut butter. Those of us who like them will bid on them in the free-market and find the price in ounces of silver, gold, or whatever the apple grower and fisherman are willing to let them trade hands. You are not required to participate. After all it is a free market.
    You got it! (thumbs up)

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    And as such, you place a value on them that comes from you - the individual.

    Did you read Menger? He figured that out 150 years ago.

    You got it! (thumbs up)
    Yeah, it is not rocket science.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Yeah, it is not rocket science.
    But you will still hear people claiming things have intrinsic value - as quoted, when you hear that, you can immediately assume they have a crackpot economic theory.

  14. #43

    Default

    I say deregulate the banks as much as possible. Create a few simple rules that are easy to understand and have strict enforcement of those rules. Less regulations enables smaller companies to compete, which increases competition, increased competition prevents companies from adopting shady practices. Additionally, increased competition will prevent a domino effect if one bank went under... since there would be many smaller banks instead of just a few large banks.

    Things are ass backwards today. Today they have millions of bs regulations and very minimal enforcement. They should do the exact opposite of what they are doing now.

  15. #44

    Default

    I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    But you will still hear people claiming things have intrinsic value - as quoted, when you hear that, you can immediately assume they have a crackpot economic theory.
    Explain what you mean by crackpot economic theory.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Free Beer View Post
    I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.
    I disagree.

    It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.

    Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.

    It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    I disagree.

    It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.

    Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.

    It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!
    This ^^ is just plain stupid. Did you go to government school? Get a clue.

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    I disagree.

    It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.

    Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.

    It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!
    You didn't really address what I said. Why did you even use my quote?
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    This ^^ is just plain stupid. Did you go to government school? Get a clue.
    (shrug)
    I thought it would be over your head and I was right.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Free Beer View Post
    You didn't really address what I said. Why did you even use my quote?
    You disagree. You want to regulate banks.
    That is what you said.

    I did address it - you want to maintain the monopoly on the banking industry - that is what "regulations" does; by administrative processes, it prevents the entry of competition.

    Now, I assume -like most people- you disagree with economic monopolies if they occur in other segments ... yet, here, you support processes that ensure and expand a monopoly.

    This is called a contradiction - and, as this is commonly an artifact of crackpot theories, I used this as a segue into explaining to Travlyr what such a theory is - which was beyond his limited comprehension.

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    (shrug)
    I thought it would be over your head and I was right.
    It's not over my head. It is dumber than rocks. You make no sense. Theories are how facts are determined. Start with a theory, test it, and if it works then it becomes a fact. Again I ask, did you go to government school?

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    It's not over my head. It is dumber than rocks. You make no sense. Theories are how facts are determined. Start with a theory, test it, and if it works then it becomes a fact. Again I ask, did you go to government school?
    First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.

    Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

    If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

    Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
    We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
    If we do, we have a theory.
    If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

    A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

    One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

    Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

    This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

    First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
    Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

    So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
    -yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

    But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

    And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

    ...and so on.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-04-2012 at 11:42 PM.

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist.

    Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

    If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

    Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
    We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
    If we do, we have a theory.
    If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

    A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

    One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

    Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

    This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

    First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
    Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

    So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
    -yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

    But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

    And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

    ...and so on.
    Then quote where I have presented a "crackpot theory"

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.

    Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

    If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

    Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
    We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
    If we do, we have a theory.
    If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

    A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

    One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

    Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

    This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

    First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
    Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

    So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
    -yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

    But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

    And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

    ...and so on.
    ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM?
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Then quote where I have presented a "crackpot theory"
    You, so quoted:
    "Both of which are funny money. They are not real. Real money is not funny money. When will you wake up? Before they toss you under the bus.. I hope."

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM?
    I am an autodidact.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-04-2012 at 11:46 PM.

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    I am an autodidact.
    Well then let me just say that people smarter than you know what is going on.

    Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money
    By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
    U. S. Congressman from Nebraska
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Free Beer View Post
    I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.
    How is that working out for us now?

  30. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Well then let me just say that people smarter than you know what is going on.

    Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money
    By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
    U. S. Congressman from Nebraska
    You underwhelm me.

  31. #60

    Default



    This and the Rothbard video from earlier in the thread are absolutely essential.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •