[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not in the least. I really wanted BC to work. It's marvelous and it takes all power away from the corrupt bastards. But lets follow this idea to conclusion: 1) BC, or something like becomes popular and widespread. 2) A few people accumulate enough BC to loan it out and charge interest. The contracts aren't enforceable, so they have to judge risk themselves. 3) Since all BC lenders are small-fry, the power of the lending industry is nil. Unregulated currency cannot compete with fiat or gold currency. There is no way to go back to the gold standard. 4) Later on, some of these guys get together and decide to corner the market, or manipulate it, and they royally fuck over a lot of people who are now dependent on BC - and there's no recourse for anyone because we all told the government to keep its mitts off. Personal question for you, Arcanist: Have you ever had a lot of money? Have you ever bought a house? A car? Ever had a loan or a mortgage or a credit card? Student loans? Modern society is entirely reliant upon enforceability. Your idealism is admirable, but your life experience is limited.

Enforceability doesn't work because the banks got bailed out. They broke the rules. On top of that many people, businesses and even local governments are filing for bankruptcy. The moral of the story is getting interest bearing loans to pay for expensive things causes big problems in the long run. The answer to that problem is not in ignoring it. Maybe if people can't afford to pay for something outright then the buyer and seller need to work it out between themselves via personal contracts, instead of getting a for profit 3rd part involved that has its own agenda.

If we look at who in America owns most of the land, I have a suspicion the holder of the deeds are banks. Banks. Banks went from owning nothing initially to owning just about everything in hundred years or so. Not a bad bit of business for their paper shuffling efforts.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Enforceability doesn't work because the banks got bailed out. They broke the rules. On top of that many people, businesses and even local governments are filing for bankruptcy. The moral of the story is getting interest bearing loans to pay for expensive things causes big problems in the long run. The answer to that problem is not in ignoring it. Maybe if people can't afford to pay for something outright then the buyer and seller need to work it out between themselves via personal contracts, instead of getting a for profit 3rd part involved that has its own agenda. If we look at who in America owns most of the land, I have a suspicion the holder of the deeds are banks. Banks. Banks went from owning nothing initially to owning just about everything in hundred years or so. Not a bad bit of business for their paper shuffling efforts.

Do you think that a private, unregulated currency will favor the plebeians or the banks? Do you think the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of someone with a contract detailing a payment of 400 BitCoins per month?

I think you and Arcanist are mistaking my critical remarks as being against the idea. I'm all for anything that can take power away from the banks. I just don't think this is the way. I see too many ways for the banks (or some entity like banks) to seize all the power again. As such, you need a force at least equally as powerful as the banks to help with enforcement - i.e. the government. The government and laws are plastic. They are reshaped with time, with presidents, with elections. Sometimes they are shaped in favor of the plebes, and sometimes they are shaped in favor of the banks.

Too much freedom is fertile breeding grounds for control and abuse between two parties. That's why the government has become so powerful - because it has needed to become that big in order to act as an effective intermediary between the people and the corporations.

You bitch about the banks having gotten bailouts, but you're ignoring the long-term fallout from that. That bailout gave Obama the leverage he needed to push through reforms which took more power away from the banks. In the end, in the long run, we the people won.

[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you think that a private, unregulated currency will favor the plebeians or the banks? Do you think the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of someone with a contract detailing a payment of 400 BitCoins per month? I think you and Arcanist are mistaking my critical remarks as being against the idea. I'm all for anything that can take power away from the banks. I just don't think this is the way. I see too many ways for the banks (or some entity like banks) to seize all the power again. As such, you need a force at least equally as powerful as the banks to help with enforcement - i.e. the government. The government and laws are plastic. They are reshaped with time, with presidents, with elections. Sometimes they are shaped in favor of the plebes, and sometimes they are shaped in favor of the banks. Too much freedom is fertile breeding grounds for control and abuse between two parties. That's why the government has become so powerful - because it has needed to become that big in order to act as an effective intermediary between the people and the corporations. You bitch about the banks having gotten bailouts, but you're ignoring the long-term fallout from that. That bailout gave Obama the leverage he needed to push through reforms which took more power away from the banks. In the end, in the long run, we the people won.

What did we win? Is the check in the mail? All I've seen is bank leaders keeping their jobs and their bonuses and banks are still trading in derivatives.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What did we win? Is the check in the mail? All I've seen is bank leaders keeping their jobs and their bonuses and banks are still trading in derivatives.

Your willful ignorance is not my problem. Do some research as to the reforms that Obama passed. One such topic I will enlighten you about - those derivatives that they are still trading in are now under much more regulation.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Do you think plebes on their own against the banks could do this? Hell-to-the-Fuck-No. You and Arcanist want to go against the banking oligarchy all by your lonesome. Have fun with that.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your willful ignorance is not my problem. Do some research as to the reforms that Obama passed. One such topic I will enlighten you about - those derivatives that they are still trading in are now under much more regulation. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How has that legislation changed how banking is done?

	Do you think plebes on their own against the banks could do this? Hell-to-the-Fuck-No. You and Arcanist want to go against the banking oligarchy all by your lonesome. Have fun with that.

Do what? Make a law that hasn't been shown to have changed anything yet? The Plebs aren't so fancy with words sometimes but they can usually tell when someone is out to cheat them.

The banks contributed heavily to Obama's campaign. Your illusion about government balancing out corporations is errant. Corporations own/rent government officials via campaign contributions and other sweet heart deals to their friends and family members.

Bankers were involved in creating the Federal Reserve and you can bet they are involved in legislation that pertains to them. Remember Elliot Spitzer? He trash talked about banks and his financial records were used to screw him.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Too much freedom is fertile breeding grounds for control and abuse between two parties. That's why the government has become so powerful - because it has needed to become that big in order to act as an effective intermediary between the people and the corporations. You bitch about the banks having gotten bailouts, but you're ignoring the long-term fallout from that. That bailout gave Obama the leverage he needed to push through reforms which took more power away from the banks. In the end, in the long run, we the people won.

I have doubts this causal relationship can only be as you describe it. The extension of government into various sectors of the economy, as the voters direct it, almost definitely enriches enriches banks and conglomerates regardless of the intentions. The government does not build its own military hardware and buy food, housing, medicine, retirement packages, etc. for everyone; it contracts with large companies to do these things. Halliburton, for instance, is the only company with the technology, capabilities and scale needed to handle certain logistics for the military— hence the controversial no-bid contracts. The private sector has to provide the "brains" and much of the brawn as well in the government's regulatory schemes— the House, Treasury, and Fed are all loaded with Goldman/JPM alumni and those banks move immense volume in T-bonds and T-bond derivatives. The more roles the voters make the government play, the more lucrative its contracts. The size of these contracts constitutes the national debt. In its entirety.

I worry about cultural issues. The voters seem like a lazy, gluttonous faction just waiting to be conquered. They want every form of security in life delivered to them. They sit on their fat asses and vote for Obama. Meanwhile the "big banks" and "big corporations" everyone mutters ominously about are staffed by people who work a hundred hours a week. They use subterfuge, compete for, or simply earn these securities. They have skills, purpose, brains, prudence, discipline. Sorry... the fat fucks are just going to die. That's the way nature works.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How has that legislation changed how banking is done? Do what? Make a law that hasn't been shown to have changed anything yet? The Plebs aren't so fancy with words sometimes but they can usually tell when someone is out to cheat them. The banks contributed heavily to Obama's campaign. Your illusion about government balancing out corporations is errant. Corporations own/rent government officials via campaign contributions and other sweet heart deals to their friends and family members. Bankers were involved in creating the Federal Reserve and you can bet they are involved in legislation that pertains to them. Remember Elliot Spitzer? He trash talked about banks and his financial records were used to screw him.

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have doubts this causal relationship can only be as you describe it. The extension of government into various sectors of the economy, as the voters direct it, almost definitely enriches enriches banks and conglomerates regardless of the intentions. The government does not build its own military hardware and buy food, housing, medicine, retirement packages, etc. for everyone; it contracts with large companies to do these things. Halliburton, for instance, is the only company with the technology, capabilities and scale needed to handle certain logistics for the military— hence the controversial no-bid contracts. The private sector has to provide the "brains" and much of the brawn as well in the government's regulatory schemes— the House, Treasury, and Fed are all loaded with Goldman/JPM alumni and those banks move immense volume in T-bonds and T-bond derivatives. The more roles the voters make the government play, the more lucrative its contracts. The size of these contracts constitutes the national debt. In its entirety. I worry about cultural issues. The voters seem like a lazy, gluttonous faction just waiting to be conquered. They want every form of security in life delivered to them. They sit on their fat asses and vote for Obama. Meanwhile the "big banks" and "big corporations" everyone mutters ominously about are staffed by people who work a hundred hours a week. They use subterfuge, compete for, or simply earn these securities. They have skills, purpose, brains, prudence, discipline. Sorry... the fat fucks are just going to die. That's the way nature works.

You both seem to be implying that because some of the government is in cahoots with the banking industry, then the whole scheme is rotten and the government is doing more harm than good and that you'd rather go at it alone against the banks?

I'm not saying the system is perfect. I've said it too many times now - the lesser of two evils. A government that we can vote in, to whatever small effect that you believe that has - versus a completely closed-door oligarchy (which is what fully deregulated money would create).

[Arcanist]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not in the least. I really wanted BC to work. It's marvelous and it takes all power away from the corrupt bastards. But lets follow this idea to conclusion: 1) BC, or something like becomes popular and widespread. 2) A few people accumulate enough BC to loan it out and charge interest. The contracts aren't enforceable, so they have to judge risk themselves. 3) Since all BC lenders are small-fry, the power of the lending industry is nil. Unregulated currency cannot compete with fiat or gold currency. There is no way to go back to the gold standard. 4) Later on, some of these guys get together and decide to corner the market, or manipulate it, and they royally fuck over a lot of people who are now dependent on BC - and there's no recourse for anyone because we all told the government to keep its mitts off. Personal question for you, Arcanist: Have you ever had a lot of money? Have you ever bought a house? A car? Ever had a loan or a mortgage or a credit card? Student loans? Modern society is entirely reliant upon enforceability. Your idealism is admirable, but your life experience is limited.

BitCoin is just one type of currency that could exist among others. And who says the contracts aren't enforcable? Buyer and seller agree to the terms, which includes the method of payment. Note the government's reaction to BitCoin. It should be indicative of something...

---------- Post added 07-11-2012 at 11:20 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You both seem to be implying that because some of the government is in cahoots with the banking industry, then the whole scheme is rotten and the government is doing more harm than good and that you'd rather go at it alone against the banks? I'm not saying the system is perfect. I've said it too many times now - the lesser of two evils. A government that we can vote in, to whatever small effect that you believe that has - versus a completely closed-door oligarchy (which is what fully deregulated money would create).

A goverment you can "vote" in is seen as legimate by, oh, around half the people because they benefit from it and enjoy making you pay for it. Good luck to you if you're in that half that has no voice.

[Causa Mortis]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your willful ignorance is not my problem. Do some research as to the reforms that Obama passed. One such topic I will enlighten you about - those derivatives that they are still trading in are now under much more regulation. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Do you think plebes on their own against the banks could do this? Hell-to-the-Fuck-No. You and Arcanist want to go against the banking oligarchy all by your lonesome. Have fun with that.

Such a carefully considered opinion this is, that which fails to ignore the greatest heist in human history.

The individuals with a lot of market power scare me a little because they can do things which are underhanded. This is preferable to giving individual complete market power and the ability to act with publicly sanctioned violence scare me a lot more, because they can do things which are totally underhanded, without anyone's consent, and if we attempt to resist them, they can use violence.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You both seem to be implying that because some of the government is in cahoots with the banking industry, then the whole scheme is rotten and the government is doing more harm than good and that you'd rather go at it alone against the banks? I'm not saying the system is perfect. I've said it too many times now - the lesser of two evils. A government that we can vote in, to whatever small effect that you believe that has - versus a completely closed-door oligarchy (which is what fully deregulated money would create).

Deregulated money is two-edged. We would have to "go it alone against the banks," yes, but the banks would have to go it alone against us. Fear of— ohmigod— actually losing money when taking risks would introduce some sorely-needed conservatism in large institutions. I am up for trying something new not because of the power-dynamics, though, but because the current system, for all its security and this notion that it is the lesser of two evils, is quite bankrupt. The debt is astronomical and growing. It is also immoral, since inter-generational debt is taxation without representation. The government is overextended and needs smaller objectives. The academic and moral argument against this recent excess of federalism is, as such, already won, and it only remains to be seen whether voters will dig in for more short-run money and precipitate a Grecian collapse, or if they will back off.

I do not know exactly what the future of a deregulated system is, but as long as it's better than the Weimar Republic, it's better than the current system.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Deregulated money is two-edged. We would have to "go it alone against the banks," yes, but the banks would have to go it alone against us. Fear of— ohmigod— actually losing money when taking risks would introduce some sorely-needed conservatism in large institutions. I am up for trying something new not because of the power-dynamics, though, but because the current system, for all its security and this notion that it is the lesser of two evils, is quite bankrupt. The debt is astronomical and growing. It is also immoral, since inter-generational debt is taxation without representation. The government is overextended and needs smaller objectives. The academic and moral argument against this recent excess of federalism is, as such, already won, and it only remains to be seen whether voters will dig in for more short-run money and precipitate a Grecian collapse, or if they will back off. I do not know exactly what the future of a deregulated system is, but as long as it's better than the Weimar Republic, it's better than the current system.

This is a very articulate point. I do agree that private banks need a lot more self-regulation. I can't imagine why things like CDO's are legal. My greatest fear with deregulation is that individual people (bankers included) are still selfish and short-sighted. The Great Depression was caused by people who had less regulation than we do today.

It seems to me, the best way moving forward is to enforce conscientious behavior in the banks. Yes, it would be ideal if they would impose this on themselves - but history has shown time and again that corporations are not very good at self-regulation. As much as I hate the idea of a bigger, more cumbersome government, I still believe deregulated currency would lead to greater abuses and more instability than what we have today. As such, I think that we should work to fix what we've got.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a very articulate point. I do agree that private banks need a lot more self-regulation. I can't imagine why things like CDO's are legal. My greatest fear with deregulation is that individual people (bankers included) are still selfish and short-sighted. The Great Depression was caused by people who had less regulation than we do today. It seems to me, the best way moving forward is to enforce conscientious behavior in the banks. Yes, it would be ideal if they would impose this on themselves - but history has shown time and again that corporations are not very good at self-regulation. As much as I hate the idea of a bigger, more cumbersome government, I still believe deregulated currency would lead to greater abuses and more instability than what we have today. As such, I think that we should work to fix what we've got.

Well, regulations are not hauled down from Mount Sinai. I think it's time to take a moment to appreciate the knowledge that goes into them, and where the knowledge also goes.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The regs are subordinate to the exact same set of knowledge that is also guiding our self-interest. When we speak of matters like punishing fraud or abuse and streamlining knowledge to all players, I agree with you that the rule of law is a crucial tool. All societies, not just the capitalist ones, seem to live and die in partly by their fight against theft and lies. But you mention shocks like the Great Depression, too. I doubt that regulations are any more effective than self-interest at combating a situation where everything just goes to hell. Regulators are former bankers and traders; they all share the same corporate and academic backgrounds, and (noticeably) no politician or regulator lost his job in 2008, so I can't imagine what makes them selfless and far-sighted relative to all the private-sector coworkers they left behind.

Apropos, there wasn't even the possibility of today's sort of regulations in the Roaring Twenties, because no one understood the relationship between real estate, stocks, bonds, banks, the Fed, the currency, and the capital markets. After-the-fact arguments for regulation in this period presume knowledge that did not yet exist then and is still far from complete almost a century later. The Great Depression, therefore, was caused by people who had less knowledge than we have today. Not necessarily less regulations.

Indeed, if there was more knowledge, would there have been such dire need of regulations? Regulations are not the only channel along which knowledge proceeds. Smart money moves, adapts, and protects itself. We cannot set too much store by limited knowledge, but at the same time, we have to realize that it is the knowledge, not the regulations, which which we have to count on.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Indeed, if there was more knowledge, would there have been such dire need of regulations? Regulations are not the only channel along which knowledge proceeds. Smart money moves, adapts, and protects itself. We cannot set too much store by limited knowledge, but at the same time, we have to realize that it is the knowledge, not the regulations, which which we have to count on.

Knowledge is meaningless if it is not used in some way. I'm sure the banks knew that there were risks with using CDOs. However, they did not know the full extent of the risks. If they did, I'm sure that they would not have invested so much and allowed it to go on so long. In this case, we can take the lessons of 2008 and add regulated transparency (which happened) so that banks can make more informed decisions. Obviously, a bank doesn't want to lose money - and someone with a lot of vested interest in making winning trades thought that it was a good idea at the time.

A very astute observation, the value of knowledge versus regulation.

[Arcanist]

Who watches the regulators?

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who watches the regulators?

Good point. Theoretically, we the people do. By voting out representatives or senators, we the people should be able to affect policy. Occasionally, people get riled up and contact their reps. Think about SOPA - a movement of people got this legislation tabled (it's not dead yet, but it's not moving forward either). If enough people voice concern over something, reps will tend to listen because they want to get reelected.

[thod]

	However, they did not know the full extent of the risks.

They did. I recall bringing up the subject in banks I have worked in. They were both pushed and pulled into it. If you are a trader, you want to place the biggest bets you can. If it comes off, you pocket a huge bonus. If it doesn't you simply look for another job. Thus all traders are incentived to take the risk. The bank itself is in a similar position. During boom times, most of it's bets pay off. Thus the ones that take the most risk obtain the best results. The shareholder hammer cautious banks for their poor results and replace the executives for their caution. Thus they too are obliged to take the risk, fully knowing what that risk is.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They did. I recall bringing up the subject in banks I have worked in. They were both pushed and pulled into it. If you are a trader, you want to place the biggest bets you can. If it comes off, you pocket a huge bonus. If it doesn't you simply look for another job. Thus all traders are incentived to take the risk. The bank itself is in a similar position. During boom times, most of it's bets pay off. Thus the ones that take the most risk obtain the best results. The shareholder hammer cautious banks for their poor results and replace the executives for their caution. Thus they too are obliged to take the risk, fully knowing what that risk is.

In that case regulation and oversight is the only way to enforce rational behavior.

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In that case regulation and oversight is the only way to enforce rational behavior.

I work for a bank. We have an entire department (compliance) dedicated to ensuring we comply with all laws and regulations, and believe me, there are A LOT of them. So much, that we are in a constant state of "audit": By the time we finish auditing our final department, it's time to audit the first one again. And we're a small institution.

And guess what? We were still put under a consent order in 2008 by the OCC and we didn't even take any bailout money. So much for all that regulation, and you want more? There is a boatload of wasted energy, talent and creativity wasted on "compliance" and it sounds like you would rather have more of it than to allow banks to eat their own risk.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I work for a bank. We have an entire department (compliance) dedicated to ensuring we comply with all laws and regulations, and believe me, there are A LOT of them. So much, that we are in a constant state of "audit": By the time we finish auditing our final department, it's time to audit the first one again. And we're a small institution. And guess what? We were still put under a consent order in 2008 by the OCC and we didn't even take any bailout money. So much for all that regulation, and you want more? There is a boatload of wasted energy, talent and creativity wasted on "compliance" and it sounds like you would rather have more of it than to allow banks to eat their own risk.

Ideally, you could allow banks to "eat their own risks" except they tend risk, you know, their customers money too. If the banks risked only their cash-on-hand that they got from excess revenue, sure. But when they risk enough account-holders money to bankrupt themselves, then yes, they need more regulation. Some institutions, such as yours, may be self-regulating and conscientious enough to remain compliant (and thus remain in business). But not all banks are such. It really starts at the top.

Sarbanes Oxley? Are you joking? Extra auditing cannot fix corruption at the top. No way, no how. Heftier criminal charges for the entire board when a company or bank does something stupid? That might work. Fear of retribution is a powerful motivator.

Please note: I use "regulation" as a broad term, with the implication being lawfully required oversight and transparency. Auditing is only one facet of that. Mandatory disclosures would be another. Placing accountability at the highest levels of a company is just one more idea to throw on the pile.