forums

Off-Topic Stock Market & Crypto Discussion

JD08 said:
I disagree with any philosophy that uses fear and envy to manipulate my opinion.
Click to expand...
We live in a society. We interact with each other. We cannot survive a Laissez-faire economic philosophy. We are not a plutocracy.
 
Advertisement
90scane said:
I'll have to disagree.


We also cannot survive an economy with too many regulations. If you want GDP to increase, you can't lock down the industries that can help grow the economy.
Click to expand...
If the rich are getting richer, by a lot, then I don't think we are suppressing their profits. And don't forget the banks. Unfortunate the disparity of income has increased.
Up until recently we had a high GDP #.
If we are in a plutocracy it’s because of the wealth our representatives receive to vote a certain way. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. Where is the oversight, or would that be too many regulations .
I love America too!
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
mr.h said:
If the rich are getting richer, by a lot, then I don't think we are suppressing their profits. And don't forget the banks. Unfortunate the disparity of income has increased.
Up until recently we had a high GDP #.
We are in a plutocracy because of the wealth our representatives receive to vote a certain way.
I love America too!
Click to expand...
Regulation and growing GDP don't go hand and hand. The more regulations we have, the more loopholes there are to find. I'd be willing to bet >50% of wealth is built via loopholes.

Our GDP has NOT been growing much for the last 20 years.

Now you admit we are a plutocracy. Sorry, but we really have been one for a long time, and potentially since Washington (extremely wealthy) was selected (not elected).
 
90scane said:
Regulation and growing GDP don't go hand and hand. The more regulations we have, the more loopholes there are to find. I'd be willing to bet >50% of wealth is built via loopholes.

Our GDP has NOT been growing much for the last 20 years.

Now you admit we are a plutocracy. Sorry, but we really have been one for a long time, and potentially since Washington (extremely wealthy) was selected (not elected).
Click to expand...
I corrected that statement. More regulations = more loopholes does not make sense to me. That is why we need oversight. Strong GDP growth is 2-3%. I said up until recently we had stronger GDP numbers. Rate hikes have lowered it.
 
mr.h said:
I corrected that statement. More regulations = more loopholes does not make sense to me. That is why we need oversight. Strong GDP growth is 2-3%. I said up until recently we had stronger GDP numbers. Rate hikes have lowered it.
Click to expand...
more regulations 100% means more loopholes. Less regulations and simplified regulations reduce the ability for regulations to get used in combination creating loopholes. The plutocracy doesn't want to remove "their" loopholes and they are willing to let others find/use them. Thus, simplify the regulations to reduce the likelihood of loopholes. Loopholes are "hacks". The more lines of regulation means more hacks just like the more lines of code the more opportunities for hacks.

Oversight is for those outside of the plutocracy otherwise many of those involved would have already been convicted.
 
Advertisement
mr.h said:
Not utopia, but a party that stands for women’s rights, workers rights, helping the poor, keeping medical costs down, including pre-existing condition, and just plain fairness by leveling the playing field. But if you’re the 1% of the 1% then I understand.
Click to expand...
This sounds suspiciously like a Town Hall post and you know exactly who will respond to it.
 
90scane said:
more regulations 100% means more loopholes. Less regulations and simplified regulations reduce the ability for regulations to get used in combination creating loopholes. The plutocracy doesn't want to remove "their" loopholes and they are willing to let others find/use them. Thus, simplify the regulations to reduce the likelihood of loopholes. Loopholes are "hacks". The more lines of regulation means more hacks just like the more lines of code the more opportunities for hacks.

Oversight is for those outside of the plutocracy otherwise many of those involved would have already been convicted.
Click to expand...
Since this is the Stock Market thread, I shudder to think of what less regulation and oversight would do to the market.
We already saw what happened to unregulated banking.
 
mr.h said:
Since this is the Stock Market thread, I shudder to think of what less regulation and oversight would do to the market.
We already saw what happened to unregulated banking.
Click to expand...
Define unregulated.
 
It would seem regulation favors the rich. They already have the capital and size to hire someone to deal with their regulations while their smaller competition and future competitors can’t afford the extra staff. Kind of interesting seeing big companies push for more regulations in their industries.

Also interesting seeing some freak event pop up, get publicity, then an uproar for “do something” happens. We should really be pushing back that the ”something“ will usually harm many and prevent something very rare if it would prevent it at all.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Define unregulated.
Click to expand...
To me, in general, it means that there would be no rules to keep things in check. The stock market would be fraught with fraud and theft without protection. It happens even now. Think Bernie Madoff. Another example is Bitcoin, that is monitored, be we’ve seen cases where people lost everything. Look how the banks caused the Great Recession in 2008.
 
mr.h said:
To me, in general, it means that there would be no rules to keep things in check. The stock market would be fraught with fraud and theft without protection. It happens even now. Think Bernie Madoff. Another example is Bitcoin, that is monitored, be we’ve seen cases where people lost everything. Look how the banks caused the Great Recession in 2008.
Click to expand...
Is that the housing recession due to government policies forcing banks to lend to people they shouldn’t over equity?

www.cnbc.com

NY's Cuomo Is 'Father of Subprime Crisis:' Bove

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is the "father of the subprime crisis" and his aggressive attacks on Wall Street could make him dangerous to the banking sector if he becomes the next governor of New York, well-known banking analyst **** Bove told CNBC.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
mr.h said:
To me, in general, it means that there would be no rules to keep things in check. The stock market would be fraught with fraud and theft without protection. It happens even now. Think Bernie Madoff. Another example is Bitcoin, that is monitored, be we’ve seen cases where people lost everything. Look how the banks caused the Great Recession in 2008.
Click to expand...
Then they haven't been unregulated in over a century.
 
Advertisement
10:00USDFactory Orders (MoM)(Mar) 0.9% -0.8% -1.1%
10:00USDJOLTS Job Openings(Mar) 9.59M-9.775M9.974M
Job openings down
factory orders up
 
mr.h said:
I corrected that statement. More regulations = more loopholes does not make sense to me. That is why we need oversight. Strong GDP growth is 2-3%. I said up until recently we had stronger GDP numbers. Rate hikes have lowered it.
Click to expand...
Focusing on taxes, it means that when a tax law comes out, there are an army of very smart attorneys, accountants, and advisors that pore over the language to find a weakness that wil hit the bottom line. Because of how laws are drafted, how little they are actually reviewed by people voting on it, how complex they are, and how much **** gets loaded into unrelated bills, it is inevitable they will have issues to exploit. However, it takes money to find them, know about them, and take advantage of them.

I have spoken with @SpikeUM about this before, but one of the biggest failures of Trump’s economic package was the Tax Reform of 2017. It started out with a great premise - incentivize companies to repatriate foreign earnings so that we can actually tax it in hopes that would equal capital expenditures and more jobs. Unfortunately they did not close the loophole to ensure it was spent on that and a significant amount of that money went to stock buybacks. That’s one example.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top