There can be political objections, too.
There can be political objections, too.
Can it be closed mindedness? Yes.
Is it necessarily? No.
so yeah, that was what I was originally responding to. it sounds more like that than you think, Manny.
and remarkably like what we torched y.h. for recently in another thread
admiring one's evidence from the deck of a distant ship
mounds and mounds and mounds
I didn't mischaracterize a damn thing.
You guys can go on believing that there is not enough evidence to clearly point to the need to more (and effective) regulation. You're welcome to believe that me pointing out the overwhelming evidence shows that is some kind of out of hand dismissal (ironic considering the fact that it relies on evidence) of the arguments against it. I don't see it at all.
Its fine to sit in a philosophical circle jerk and say that its never close minded to question whats obvious, but when it comes down to decision making there definitely comes a time when a burden of proof is met.
what's so obvious again?
You absolutely did. Its not my political view: Its the preponderance of evidence. SHOW me where lack of regulations has produced a good results regarding large MNT corps and you might have a point.
Not going to hold my breath waiting for that.
i'm a proponent of prompt action laws and a strong resolution authority. i'm ok with a bank funded rescue fund and a functional equivalent of glass-stegall being adopted.
more than that?
make your case if it's so obvious...
That manny is a logical person who shares a viewpoint with other logical people. Logically, the only way someone can come to a different conclusion than he did is in a world absent of logic.
Lack of effective regulation and the efforts of financial giants led to the financial crisis in 2008.
Is that more regulation? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was "more regulation".
I'll check though.
Yup.
Sounds like more regulation to me.
I guess you went through all of that just to agree.
Do you think we need more regulation?
Who's dodging now?
I asked you a question, Manny.
I didn't quantify the level of regulation, WH. Why didn't I do that? Because obviously that requires more nuance and is obviously more contentious and up for debate. That doesn't take away that people (although apparently you're not one of them) still deny that very simple fact.
What I said was that we needed more regulation. I said no more and anything else you read into that is on you. Not me.
I said we need more regulation and that it was obvious. You and CG jumped on me and mischaracterized that into something much more only for you to then agree with me that we did indeed need more regulation.
Why is it my case to make? Seems like your creation, not mine.
well, i'm still asking. it isn't so obvious what's necessary to me, and frankly offensive you should attempt to beg the question while shunning all discussion of the particular measures to be taken.
if it's so obvious we must do something it can hardly be out of bounds to demand you specify what's so damned necessary to do
otherwise, you're just gathering partisan wool
I'm not shunning the conversation at all. I just want to be clear what my initial statement was saying and its not saying anything specific at all about how much more regulation we need for a reason. I go into specifics and then you and CG try to lump that into my original statement which was not meant to be a discussion on what was needed but rather simply that the failure to acknowledge the need for additional regulation was a symptom of completely ignoring information that might change a person's paradigm and how that is also evident when it comes to climate change. There are people out there who under no circumstances will admit that more government regulation is needed. That was my point and (quite frankly) think it was pretty damn clear.
I don't know the exact level of regulation needed outside of - as you said - something like glass stegal although I definitely believe there needs to be a form of regulation regarding the derivatives market and whether or not outright gambling and speculation should be allowed on a security or item where the buyer has no vested interest.
Within the mounds and mounds of evidence are the caveats of unintended consequences (additional bank fees anyone?). Questioning the tacit "need for regulations" is not always the liability that is being proscribed to it.
Crushing humanity, one post at a time.
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.
www.soundclick.com/teysha
Pop-Tart® found in drive D: Delete Kids? Y/n
Officially Noted By Agloco
Originally Posted by WC
"...but it was your assumption that assumed I made an assumption"
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
...you're not curious about anything outside of your close-minded, benighted blind ideology.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
