There is a near consensus on what ought to be down in terms of regulatory reorganization in light of the financial crisis: consolidate the alphabet soup of banking and securities regulators, and add on a single coordinating sytemic super-regulator to oversee issues like leverage and capital.
Treasury sort of made some half-hearted efforts to do this, but encountered resistance from congressional barons who like the present chaotic system because it maximizes the number of committee subchairman that need to be bribed by industry. Also I suspect that Geithner who is former Federal Reserve was lukewarm at best at putting in place a super-regulator on top of the Fed.
The likely result is the worst of all possible worlds, where the present system that had failed so badly is kept in place in most material respects, and augmented by a coordinating "council" which is basically a glorified talking shop whose main effect will be to add another layer of bureaucracy (and will probably be subject to capture by the fed).
I don't get it - for some reason, Obama keeps on caving into and compromising with the Congressional democrats on every major domestic issue - even as he steers a somewhat independent line on security and defense issues. Last I checked - his popularity was running in the mid-60s and Congress was well below 30. The Congressional dems need him far more than he needs them. Either he is overly timid, or he actually agrees with the congressional line, or he just basically doesn't care. I am not sure which these alternatives is worst but they are all pretty bad.
Clearly he hates America.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2009, 02:25:34 PM
or he just basically doesn't care.
Probably this. Obama has one mission in life for the next 3 years, and it has nothing to do with the economy.
As long as the American people continue to give Obama their unthinking adulation, he can do whatever he wants.
The situation is so grim these days it is best to simply not think about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2009, 02:25:34 PM
I don't get it - for some reason, Obama keeps on caving into and compromising with the Congressional democrats on every major domestic issue - even as he steers a somewhat independent line on security and defense issues. Last I checked - his popularity was running in the mid-60s and Congress was well below 30. The Congressional dems need him far more than he needs them. Either he is overly timid, or he actually agrees with the congressional line, or he just basically doesn't care. I am not sure which these alternatives is worst but they are all pretty bad.
I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that because all his previous experience with national issues came as a congressional democrat, his views are probably shaped by his time there and the people he trusts for advice probably come from that body.
I think the problem is that Obama is conciliatory to a fault.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2009, 02:25:34 PMEither he is overly timid, or he actually agrees with the congressional line, or he just basically doesn't care.
OR secret Muslin trying to destroy America.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 12, 2009, 02:41:30 PM
OR secret Muslin trying to destroy America.
Can you imagine? He might force hideous drapes on us! :o
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2009, 02:25:34 PM
There is a near consensus on what ought to be down in terms of regulatory reorganization in light of the financial crisis: consolidate the alphabet soup of banking and securities regulators, and add on a single coordinating sytemic super-regulator to oversee issues like leverage and capital.
Treasury sort of made some half-hearted efforts to do this, but encountered resistance from congressional barons who like the present chaotic system because it maximizes the number of committee subchairman that need to be bribed by industry. Also I suspect that Geithner who is former Federal Reserve was lukewarm at best at putting in place a super-regulator on top of the Fed.
The likely result is the worst of all possible worlds, where the present system that had failed so badly is kept in place in most material respects, and augmented by a coordinating "council" which is basically a glorified talking shop whose main effect will be to add another layer of bureaucracy (and will probably be subject to capture by the fed).
I don't get it - for some reason, Obama keeps on caving into and compromising with the Congressional democrats on every major domestic issue - even as he steers a somewhat independent line on security and defense issues. Last I checked - his popularity was running in the mid-60s and Congress was well below 30. The Congressional dems need him far more than he needs them. Either he is overly timid, or he actually agrees with the congressional line, or he just basically doesn't care. I am not sure which these alternatives is worst but they are all pretty bad.
That can be attributed to his complete lack of leadership and management skills. It takes years to develop good executive skills and this is Obama's first such job.
Well, I couched my support and optimism for Obama on the rather optimistic idea that IFF he managed to pretty much ignore the Dems in Congress, he could probably do a pretty decent job.
To the extent he has done so, I think I was right. Why he is simply bowing to their wishes on economic policy, I am not really sure, but it is not going to end well. The Dems have made it clear that their interest in the crisis is almost completely defined by the opportunity it presents them to re-shape the American economic basis into a much more socialist/liberal disaster. If Obama is going to go along with that, and indications are that he is doing so not just begrudgingly but enthusiastically, this could be pretty bad in the long run.
Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2009, 02:39:11 PM
I think the problem is that Obama is conciliatory to a fault.
I don't think that is the case - I have seen no indication that he is being dragged kicking and screaming to all these abortions of fiscal policies, quite the opposite.
Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2009, 02:39:11 PM
I think the problem is that Obama is conciliatory to a fault.
He is a christlike figure. But then, christ was nailed to a cross and his supporters fed to lions, so that may not work out well for us.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2009, 02:48:48 PMIf Obama is going to go along with that, and indications are that he is doing so not just begrudgingly but enthusiastically, this could be pretty bad in the long run.
But, at least Palin can't force textbooks with dinosaur cowboy Jesus in to school.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 12, 2009, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2009, 02:48:48 PMIf Obama is going to go along with that, and indications are that he is doing so not just begrudgingly but enthusiastically, this could be pretty bad in the long run.
But, at least Palin can't force textbooks with dinosaur cowboy Jesus in to school.
McCain's not dead yet.
For some reason maybe he thinks this isn't the time? Perhaps when immedeately out of the recovery, but all of this is still in mind?
Quote from: Queequeg on June 12, 2009, 04:47:18 PM
For some reason maybe he thinks this isn't the time? Perhaps when immedeately out of the recovery, but all of this is still in mind?
:lmfao:
You're so naive, it's kind of cute.
When the urgency is gone there's no chance of getting major reform done.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 12, 2009, 04:47:18 PM
For some reason maybe he thinks this isn't the time? Perhaps when immedeately out of the recovery, but all of this is still in mind?
:lmfao:
You're so naive, it's kind of cute.
When the urgency is gone there's no chance of getting major reform done.
He makes Tim look all worldly and wise.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 04:55:05 PM
:lmfao:
You're so naive, it's kind of cute.
When the urgency is gone there's no chance of getting major reform done.
I don't know what he is thinking. Timing could very seriously be an issue; he'll never have as much clout as now, so he goes straight for the stuff that would be difficult to deal with during the recovery, while presumably the memory of this financial fuckup will be fresh in the memory for a whole generation?
Quote from: Queequeg on June 12, 2009, 05:13:03 PM
I don't know what he is thinking. Timing could very seriously be an issue; he'll never have as much clout as now, so he goes straight for the stuff that would be difficult to deal with during the recovery, while presumably the memory of this financial fuckup will be fresh in the memory for a whole generation?
Nobody really does. There have been a few issues now where it appears he's been absolutely terrified to use his political capital, at least against the congressional democrats.
Who or what has oversight seems like a secondary issue in my opinion compared to what the actual regulations should be. Cut back the leverage ratio seems like a no-brainer, but what should we do about derivatives?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
Who or what has oversight seems like a secondary issue in my opinion compared to what the actual regulations should be. Cut back the leverage ratio seems like a no-brainer, but what should we do about derivatives?
With the exception of CDS and some window dressing like say on pay votes, I'd lay better than 50-50 odds nothing happens. Regulating leverage may seem like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. If I opened a bank with no capital and put all my deposits in a shoebox, I'd have an infinite debt to equity ratio but no risk. If I opened a bank with little leverage but put all the assets in risky illiquid assets, there may still be a lot of risk.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 12, 2009, 06:45:54 PM
With the exception of CDS and some window dressing like say on pay votes, I'd lay better than 50-50 odds nothing happens. Regulating leverage may seem like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. If I opened a bank with no capital and put all my deposits in a shoebox, I'd have an infinite debt to equity ratio but no risk. If I opened a bank with little leverage but put all the assets in risky illiquid assets, there may still be a lot of risk.
My question was what should happen, not what will happen.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 04:55:05 PM
When the urgency is gone there's no chance of getting major reform done.
I think this is true. And I think this is the time to push through major reform. The situation has stabilised sufficiently for there to be a new system put in place.
Having said that no-one seems to be doing it. That makes more me worried because it seems like we're storing up future problems. Obama is the one global leader who can do this right now. At the minute I think Germany's coming up to election, Brown's spent and the government here is focused solely on his survival, in France Sarko's probably not strong enough to try any other big reforms any time soon and is hugely unpopular despite the PS's remarkably inability to succeed at anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2009, 06:51:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 12, 2009, 06:45:54 PM
With the exception of CDS and some window dressing like say on pay votes, I'd lay better than 50-50 odds nothing happens. Regulating leverage may seem like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. If I opened a bank with no capital and put all my deposits in a shoebox, I'd have an infinite debt to equity ratio but no risk. If I opened a bank with little leverage but put all the assets in risky illiquid assets, there may still be a lot of risk.
My question was what should happen, not what will happen.
Oh. In that case I don't have the answer. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
Who or what has oversight seems like a secondary issue in my opinion compared to what the actual regulations should be.
Don't totally agree. The experience with the alphabet soup is that it maximizes the potential for regulatory arbitrage and agency capture. Who regulates and how is just as important as the substance of the regulation itself. I also think that the last crisis demonstrated a fatal weakeness in the Fed as a macroprudential regulator becuase its institutional role in setting and defending monetary policy may be at odds with the regulatory function.
Joan, did we make a horrible mistake in picking the one? :blush:
Quote from: Fate on June 15, 2009, 03:14:35 PM
Joan, did we make a horrible mistake in picking the one? :blush:
You should have let Al Gore run. He would have kept all our money safe-- in a lockbox.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2009, 06:53:26 PM
Having said that no-one seems to be doing it. That makes more me worried because it seems like we're storing up future problems. Obama is the one global leader who can do this right now. At the minute I think Germany's coming up to election, Brown's spent and the government here is focused solely on his survival, in France Sarko's probably not strong enough to try any other big reforms any time soon and is hugely unpopular despite the PS's remarkably inability to succeed at anything.
I'm glad. Obama has already shown that he can't be trusted to manage the nation.
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
http://www.kniferights.org/U%20S%20Customs%20Proposed%20Ruling%20-%20Assisted%20Opening%20Knives.pdf
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:43:09 PM
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
Any knife that opens automatically, using either centripetal force, springs, a button or other device has been illegal for many years in Canada (see s. 84 of the Criminal Code and the definition of "prohibited weapon").
And yet plenty of people still have pocketknives. Hell this is the Yukon - its not unheard of for people to just wear big straping hunting knives on their belt.
Methinks you exagerate just a tad.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 06:48:23 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:43:09 PM
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
Any knife that opens automatically, using either centripetal force, springs, a button or other device has been illegal for many years in Canada (see s. 84 of the Criminal Code and the definition of "prohibited weapon").
And yet plenty of people still have pocketknives. Hell this is the Yukon - its not unheard of for people to just wear big straping hunting knives on their belt.
Methinks you exagerate just a tad.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Down here, we actually enforce our laws.
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 06:48:23 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:43:09 PM
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
Any knife that opens automatically, using either centripetal force, springs, a button or other device has been illegal for many years in Canada (see s. 84 of the Criminal Code and the definition of "prohibited weapon").
And yet plenty of people still have pocketknives. Hell this is the Yukon - its not unheard of for people to just wear big straping hunting knives on their belt.
Methinks you exagerate just a tad.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Down here, we actually enforce our laws.
You miss my point.
pocket knife != switchblade
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 06:48:23 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:43:09 PM
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
Any knife that opens automatically, using either centripetal force, springs, a button or other device has been illegal for many years in Canada (see s. 84 of the Criminal Code and the definition of "prohibited weapon").
And yet plenty of people still have pocketknives. Hell this is the Yukon - its not unheard of for people to just wear big straping hunting knives on their belt.
Methinks you exagerate just a tad.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Down here, we actually enforce our laws.
Not only that, but it seems that you even enforce things that aren't the law. It's possible to have a pocketknife that isn't a switchblade or an assisted-opening knife.
So, what was it like going to law school with Martinus?
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2009, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 06:48:23 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:43:09 PM
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
Any knife that opens automatically, using either centripetal force, springs, a button or other device has been illegal for many years in Canada (see s. 84 of the Criminal Code and the definition of "prohibited weapon").
And yet plenty of people still have pocketknives. Hell this is the Yukon - its not unheard of for people to just wear big straping hunting knives on their belt.
Methinks you exagerate just a tad.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Down here, we actually enforce our laws.
Not only that, but it seems that you even enforce things that aren't the law. It's possible to have a pocketknife that isn't a switchblade or an assisted-opening knife.
So, what was it like going to law school with Martinus?
I wouldn't know. My visa to Pogroms-R-Us was denied. In fact, the new regs would cover knives with blade locks as well. As you could read in the 63 page PDF I provided the executive summary to.
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 07:29:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2009, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 06:48:23 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 15, 2009, 06:43:09 PM
In other news, CBP is requesting a regulatory change to modify language declaring any assisted-opening knife a switchblade, making it illegal to import, and, consequently, making it illegal to own, since many states rely on the 1958 Switchblade Act and its regs for permissible knife use. Hooray!
They may not take away our guns, but they're going to take away our pocketknives!
Any knife that opens automatically, using either centripetal force, springs, a button or other device has been illegal for many years in Canada (see s. 84 of the Criminal Code and the definition of "prohibited weapon").
And yet plenty of people still have pocketknives. Hell this is the Yukon - its not unheard of for people to just wear big straping hunting knives on their belt.
Methinks you exagerate just a tad.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Down here, we actually enforce our laws.
Not only that, but it seems that you even enforce things that aren't the law. It's possible to have a pocketknife that isn't a switchblade or an assisted-opening knife.
So, what was it like going to law school with Martinus?
I wouldn't know. My visa to Pogroms-R-Us was denied. In fact, the new regs would cover knives with blade locks as well. As you could read in the 63 page PDF I provided the executive summary to.
I'm not going to read the .pdf.
Your summary was awful and inaccurate in that case. You said 'assisted-opening knife', not 'lock-bladed knife'.