Thread: Freddie/Fannie Bailout Imminent

Originally Posted by Defensor

You mention the problem, yet your solution is to make it worse.

The public money pays for the oversight. It provides the checks and balances on the activities of the corporations that are graciously allowed to do business on US soil. This is to ensure the US citizens don't get RIPPED OFF. So, yes, it's a public function. It falls into the same category as police, probably. The reason there are police, is because people are people, and, they become unruly from time to time. A cop putting a drunkard in the tank overnight, is the same as a regulator yanking a securities license from a wayward dealer. This stuff happens ALL THE TIME, and it'll keep happening because it's human nature, and the public function is to ensure that it doesn't disrupt the functionining of the OTHER human beings that are trying to do the RIGHT thing.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Corporations hurt everyone when government gets involved.

Corporations hurt everyone PERIOD. Having "no" government oversight only makes the period more emphatic. I can give you DOZENS of examples - how about the Exxon Valdez thing? That money was supposed to be PUNITIVE, and yet they're allowed to pass it on to the consumer just like a "cost of doing business". What's wrong with this picture?

No, I'm sorry my friend, we need MORE oversight, not less. Those bastids in Congress are able to pull bills out of their nearest orifices in the middle of the nigiht with no oversight, and somehow get them passed into law - that's HOW we end up with things like 80-billion dollar giveaways to big oil.

This is HUMAN NATURE, it doesn't matter whether it's in the corporate sphere or the government sphere. The same principles, apply in both. If you want the freedom to navigate and maneuver, there are certain things you have to give up - certain ways in which you have to become "responsible" to the rest of us. That is NECESSARY. Any way you slice it, that is NECESSARY. So, I'm probably like you, in the sense that I'd wish to "minimze" that, but, I do recognize its necessity.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

The public money pays for the oversight. It provides the checks and balances on the activities of the corporations that are graciously allowed to do business on US soil. This is to ensure the US citizens don't get RIPPED OFF. So, yes, it's a public function. It falls into the same category as police, probably. The reason there are police, is because people are people, and, they become unruly from time to time. A cop putting a drunkard in the tank overnight, is the same as a regulator yanking a securities license from a wayward dealer. This stuff happens ALL THE TIME, and it'll keep happening because it's human nature, and the public function is to ensure that it doesn't disrupt the functionining of the OTHER human beings that are trying to do the RIGHT thing.

Again, checks and balances have to do with balancing the branches of government. They have nothing to do with regulating the economy, which is not a legitimate function of government.

Corporations hurt everyone PERIOD. Having "no" government oversight only makes the period more emphatic. I can give you DOZENS of examples - how about the Exxon Valdez thing? That money was supposed to be PUNITIVE, and yet they're allowed to pass it on to the consumer just like a "cost of doing business". What's wrong with this picture?

No, I'm sorry my friend, we need MORE oversight, not less. Those bastids in Congress are able to pull bills out of their nearest orifices in the middle of the nigiht with no oversight, and somehow get them passed into law - that's HOW we end up with things like 80-billion dollar giveaways to big oil.

This is HUMAN NATURE, it doesn't matter whether it's in the corporate sphere or the government sphere. The same principles, apply in both. If you want the freedom to navigate and maneuver, there are certain things you have to give up - certain ways in which you have to become "responsible" to the rest of us. That is NECESSARY. Any way you slice it, that is NECESSARY. So, I'm probably like you, in the sense that I'd wish to "minimze" that, but, I do recognize its necessity.

Government hurts everyone, period. You repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't change that. You keep citing examples of government getting involved in the economy which only serves to further shatter your own argument.

All right, I'm sorry. Let me re-phrase then. I'll try to start from the top of the tree, and work down.

Corporations, and governments, are both examples of "instititutions" - collections of people - the point being, they're made up of PEOPLE, yes? Individual human beings. So, the vagaries of human nature, will be expressed in both cases.

In government, the principle of "checks and balances" and "oversight", serves to ACCOUNT for the vagaries of human nature (at least in part, we hope), and, we have a "mechanism" for instituting these things - we call it LAW. Yes?

And, in government, law doesn't occur "by itself", it supposedly reflects the Will of the People, yes?

But, in a corporation, that is DIFFERENT. It is also true that law doesn't occur "by itself", but in this case, it is not the Will of the People being represented, it is PROFIT - and usually someone's PERSONAL profit, yes?

So, we expect these people to behave in exactly the same way that government officials do, yes? They'll lie, steal, cheat, get corrupt, sell their souls to the devil for a vacation home - whatever.

In the public domain, there is a "natural pressure" for checks and balances, because the People make the law. In a corporation, there is NO such pressure, because the employees don't make the law, and the customers don't make the law. There is NO law in a corporation, other than the internal law.

The ONLY way we get checks and balances into the corporate domain, is through LAW, and that is a PUBLIC function. Yes?

Once again - a PUBLIC function - the public benefit is to prevent consumers from being RIPPED OFF, in the same way that a sheriff prevents the good citizens of Dodge from being vicitimized by the guys in the black hats.

Regulation of private enterprise, is NECESSARY, for the same reason that laws against murder are. We just can't have people running around killing each other all the time, that wouldn't be practical. Then they couldn't work and contribute to the economy and raise a family and all that good stuff, they'd just always be sittin' at the window waitin' for the next black hat to come along.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

So, we expect these people to behave in exactly the same way that government officials do, yes? They'll lie, steal, cheat, get corrupt, sell their souls to the devil for a vacation home - whatever.

Unlike government, a corporate that lies, steals, cheats, gets corrupt, and sells their souls to the devil for a vacation home won't be in business very long. Unless the government steps in to save them from the market, of course.

In the public domain, there is a "natural pressure" for checks and balances, because the People make the law. In a corporation, there is NO such pressure, because the employees don't make the law, and the customers don't make the law. There is NO law in a corporation, other than the internal law.

'Checks and balances' refer to a very specific component of the U.S. federal government. I have no idea where you got the idea that all of society was to be built upon 'checks and balances.'

Once again - a PUBLIC function - the public benefit is to prevent consumers from being RIPPED OFF, in the same way that a sheriff prevents the good citizens of Dodge from being vicitimized by the guys in the black hats.

A company that rips off consumers will go out of business unless government saves it. As has been stated numerous times now.

Regulation of private enterprise, is NECESSARY, for the same reason that laws against murder are. We just can't have people running around killing each other all the time, that wouldn't be practical. Then they couldn't work and contribute to the economy and raise a family and all that good stuff, they'd just always be sittin' at the window waitin' for the next black hat to come along.

This part of your post makes no sense whatsoever. There is no logical flow at all.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Gotta love it when someone is so arrogant about being so wrong.

The technical term for Fannie and Freddie are Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)

But nice try pretending to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Your "point" never stood in the first place.

Well Goober, I read your link and discovered a couple of things I didn't know: government sponsored enterprises get special tax breaks in terms of immunity from state and local taxes. And the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is responsible for regulating these [b]GSEs[/u]. So it looks to me like your "documentation" just reinforced my point, which is that most of the shit we're in is a direct result of the gummint's failure to conduct adequate oversight and regulation.

Your turn to try to dig your ass out, boyo! :therethere:

Originally Posted by Buck Laser

Well Goober, I read your link and discovered a couple of things I didn't know: government sponsored enterprises get special tax breaks in terms of immunity from state and local taxes. And the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is responsible for regulating these [b]GSEs[/u]. So it looks to me like your "documentation" just reinforced my point, which is that most of the shit we're in is a direct result of the gummint's failure to conduct adequate oversight and regulation.

Your turn to try to dig your ass out, boyo! :therethere:

Yes, when government attempts to regulate and interfere with the economy, it fails. Fannie and Freddie are further proof of this.

So now I'm wondering why you still advocate further "oversight and regulation?"


By the way, I love the way you tried to spin the fact that you were dead wrong in your last post with the claim that I'm the one who's dug into a hole here. :laughing:

Originally Posted by Defensor

Unlike government, a corporate that lies, steals, cheats, gets corrupt, and sells their souls to the devil for a vacation home won't be in business very long. Unless the government steps in to save them from the market, of course.

You're missing the point. It's TOO LATE once it happens. The "market forces" you're talking about, those are the same things that take political parties into and out of power. So, if a prez really screws up, we "vote him out". Same as, if a corp really screws up, we stop buying their products.

Originally Posted by Defensor

'Checks and balances' refer to a very specific component of the U.S. federal government. I have no idea where you got the idea that all of society was to be built upon 'checks and balances.'

Clearly. But, think about it - it WORKS. What works in a political institution, which is comprised of PEOPLE, will also work in a corporate institution, which is comprised of PEOPLE. Makes sense, doesn't it? There are only a limited number of higher-level structures you can create with the same building blocks. And, generally speaking, you'll find that most of those, obey the same dynamics. Certainly they're all subsets of the more general dynamic. All I'm saying, the dynamic derives from PEOPLE, not what you choose to call the "social structure" - whether it be a corporatiobn or a government.

Originally Posted by Defensor

A company that rips off consumers will go out of business unless government saves it. As has been stated numerous times now.

No. That is an erroneous assumption. I can give you numerous counter-examples. Monopoly, would be the simplest one.

Originally Posted by Defensor

This part of your post makes no sense whatsoever. There is no logical flow at all.

Yes, there is. I'm making a different fundamental assumption than you are.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

You're missing the point. It's TOO LATE once it happens. The "market forces" you're talking about, those are the same things that take political parties into and out of power. So, if a prez really screws up, we "vote him out". Same as, if a corp really screws up, we stop buying their products.

Market forces don't apply to government. That's why it is a tremendous failure in everything it does.

Clearly. But, think about it - it WORKS. What works in a political institution, which is comprised of PEOPLE, will also work in a corporate institution, which is comprised of PEOPLE. Makes sense, doesn't it? There are only a limited number of higher-level structures you can create with the same building blocks. And, generally speaking, you'll find that most of those, obey the same dynamics. Certainly they're all subsets of the more general dynamic. All I'm saying, the dynamic derives from PEOPLE, not what you choose to call the "social structure" - whether it be a corporatiobn or a government.

Huh? Are you still going on about that "checks and balances" crap?

And I would argue that it most certainly HAS NOT worked to restrain government anyway.

No. That is an erroneous assumption. I can give you numerous counter-examples. Monopoly, would be the simplest one.

Then go ahead, let's hear 'em.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Market forces don't apply to government. That's why it is a tremendous failure in everything it does.



Huh? Are you still going on about that "checks and balances" crap?

And I would argue that it most certainly HAS NOT worked to restrain government anyway.

Then go ahead, let's hear 'em.

M... I think you're hearing me, aren't you? Market forces most certainly DO apply to government - at least, ours. We have elections every four years, remember?

You are technically correct on many points. I mean, if I looked at all the ways in which the Tenth Amendment ALONE has been trampled on, I could have a field day with "government intervention".

See, look - here's the reality though - these corps, some of 'em, are MORE powerful than the United States Government. The President, goes hat-in-hand to the CEO of AT&T when he wants a wiretap. He says, "please, would you help?"

So, what happens, in the opposite case, if you come up against a situation in which the company ITSELF is on the wrong side of the law, and the Government is trying to help you but CAN'T?

What happens if the company says "Fongoo" to the Prez? Well, we bring them to heel with LAW, which is a form of REGULATION. Yes? Trust-busting Teddy taking all those corps apart, that was "regulation" in a way - it was severe, but it was HELPFUL.

Not all regulation is bad. Yes it can hurt both the corp and the economy. But there is more to the equation than just corps and the economy. MUCH more. An economy isn't going to help you if social conditions are such that no one can go to work for fear of being murdered on their way there or back.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

M... I think you're hearing me, aren't you? Market forces most certainly DO apply to government - at least, ours. We have elections every four years, remember?

Elections are not market forces. They are contrived institutions within government. Changing from Democrat to Republican does not change the government itself as the forces of competition would.

By its very nature, a state is a violation of the free market.

You are technically correct on many points. I mean, if I looked at all the ways in which the Tenth Amendment ALONE has been trampled on, I could have a field day with "government intervention".

Yes. A simple rule: government, bad; more government, worse.

See, look - here's the reality though - these corps, some of 'em, are MORE powerful than the United States Government. The President, goes hat-in-hand to the CEO of AT&T when he wants a wiretap. He says, "please, would you help?"

The government doesn't belong involved with corporations. But this is exactly what you are advocating with "regulation."

What happens if the company says "Fongoo" to the Prez? Well, we bring them to heel with LAW, which is a form of REGULATION. Yes? Trust-busting Teddy taking all those corps apart, that was "regulation" in a way - it was severe, but it was HELPFUL.

Fascist Theodore Roosevelt was one of the worst tyrants in American history.

Not all regulation is bad. Yes it can hurt both the corp and the economy. But there is more to the equation than just corps and the economy. MUCH more. An economy isn't going to help you if social conditions are such that no one can go to work for fear of being murdered on their way there or back.

All regulation is bad, no exceptions. Government interference is unnecessary and harmful.