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 cir stances 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.
I think I characterized your statement perfectly. Don't worry, we're all guilty of doing this to some extent. Myself included.
Really? I didn't realize I even mentioned a political party. I don't remember swinging any donkey pom poms in that statement at all (or very much at all on this subject). In the context of what I said, it would be pretty hard to be critical of liberals considering they want more regulation and such an action would not exactly be paradigm shattering. I have never once outright said or even insinuated that liberals are somehow immune to those situations.
Are you basically saying I have to criticize liberals every time I criticize conservatives to remain on an even keel, WH?
big smoke, small steak
banning naked shorts is probably fine, and maybe some of the margin rules could be tweaked, but i'd be against an outright ban. is that all you got?
Whatever. In the meantime, do we need more regulation? Its a very simple question.
Nope.
Please continue to resist clarifying what you mean when you make broad generalizations: it helps the rest of us see how empty they are.
.....Without a simple answer...
I made a very simple statement and you read it for more than it was and now you're being critical because I didn't say more?big smoke, small steak
banning naked shorts is probably fine, and maybe some of the margin rules could be tweaked, but i'd be against an outright ban. is that all you got?
WH, I have a good amount of respect for you, but criticism from you about my post being vapid is a bit much considering your posting style.
What the am I resisting? I told you what I meant. I'm sorry it wasn't enough for you. Please continue reading more into what I said even after I broke it down for you.
There's absolutely a simple answer. Yes, or no. At some point the decision making starts there. We either will add regulation or we will not. Before you decide what changes need to be made, don't you have to decide whether or not changes need to be made?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
