Exactly what I'm in favor of doing. Use Sherman on the banks to break them up into small enough pieces, then get government out of their day to day operations. Less regulation overall.
I never said it was anyone here nor did I say that anyone who questioned it feel into that category. I simply said that there are many conservatives who refuse to believe we need more regulation because they can't handle that it challenges their world view.
How in the world is that less regulation overall? You're breaking up the banks!
No it doesn't.Doesn't' it make sense that I would have thought about it in a way that would have supported my point? Doesn't make much sense otherwise.
I usually demand other fools back up their bs, but since you say your own thinking supports your lame ass (indeed, practically content free) generalization, I'll just take your word for it.
And then I'm leaving them alone to make their own decisions and to deal with the consequences of those decisions. I get that we're going to disagree on this, but that scenario sure looks like less regulation to me than being involved in a bank's day to day business for all eternity.
I wasn't trying to take liberties with what you said. I took hoping they would "fall and fall hard" to mean a collapse of the industry and our economy because that's exactly what would happen. You pick the TBTF but if someone like BofA "falls hard" at this time you can forget about the Lehman ripples through the industry, it'll be a tsunami.
I guess it doesn't make sense if you thought I was lying. I'll leave that up to the reader. If you and others think that I meant something else I can live with that. In the end I try to make sure that my conclusions are logical and at this time I feel satisfied they are. This is NOT to say that if you come to a different one it means you're not logical (which is not what I said above).
Fair enough
It's when we've been wrong that we need love the most.
I'm willing to revisit this thread at a later time as right now I don't agree I'm wrong, but I can say that having you, CG, and Teysha all saying to a varying degree that I am isn't taken without note.
it's clear you've remained oblvious
and that's ok
I'm gonna go ahead and apologize in advance for misreading the tone of this post too.
no blood, no foul
I dish it out so I'd better be able to take it but that doesn't mean I can't spot it.
you're the one who offered an empty generalization. all i did was point that out.
that's a foul?
I think you're wrong.
I'm willing to revisit this thread at a later time as right now I don't agree I'm wrong, but I can say that having you, CG, and Teysha all saying to a varying degree that I am isn't taken without note.
intent to foul?
i think you're just sore that you skinned your knee
the fact that we're discussing the pro and cons of more regulation at all in this thread clearly suggests to me that someone had a political axe to grind.
no biggie, just cop
Sooooooo........are you giving the article your blessing tacitly?
not at all
the veracity of financial reporting can be greatly overstimated
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
