3/3/2010 11:03:25 PM

Will Ferrel is not funny, though I do not wish he would die.

3/3/2010 11:04:47 PM

pretty good

i laffed

3/3/2010 11:14:06 PM

pretty good

i laffed

But the CFPA is a handout to large corporations. When you ban product customization, it tends to be the products offered by the big firms that become the standards. Not to mention the obvious competitive advantage large firms have in dealing with regulation. As small competitors are driven out of the market, the large firms will be free to raise prices. As such, as is the norm in American governance, consumers will once again be screwed in the name of protecting consumers.

[Edited on March 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/3/2010 11:58:29 PM

i waited for the funny .....................but it never came

3/4/2010 1:58:47 AM

Jim Carey as zombie Reagan isn't good for a laugh?

Come on, man.

Chevy Chase as zombie Ford, also not good for a laugh?

OH COME ON

3/4/2010 8:59:39 AM

Opie directed it.

3/4/2010 10:30:27 AM

I miss Phil Hartman.

3/5/2010 7:58:20 PM

Not really funny. I don't like it when comedians try to persuade me of things. I think I'll oppose this consumer protection nonsense.

3/5/2010 9:13:17 PM

I thought this thread was about David Paterson.

3/6/2010 7:27:13 AM

Quote :

" But the CFPA is a handout to large corporations. When you ban product customization, it tends to be the products offered by the big firms that become the standards. Not to mention the obvious competitive advantage large firms have in dealing with regulation. As small competitors are driven out of the market, the large firms will be free to raise prices. As such, as is the norm in American governance, consumers will once again be screwed in the name of protecting consumers."

Where did this come from, I'd like to read in more detail about this.

3/6/2010 9:18:20 AM

Jim Carey owned it.

3/6/2010 10:31:10 AM

^^ he has no idea - he's just making shit up on the fly. He will use any excuse to try to paint any regulation in a bad light.

you can pretty much tell how bad any regulation will be for the banks by how hard they are lobbying against it, and I don't think there's any love lost for CFPA among the large banks.

3/7/2010 11:57:02 AM

No, I fully expect he echo chambered that from Cato or Heritage or pulled some other 1% related example from the past 20 years to prove his point.

3/7/2010 12:10:27 PM

Actually, it was a little odd that a discussion of the CFPA had not turned up in my RSS feed. I actually had to go to google news and read a summary of the thing then derive a conclusion from that. It said the agency would be responsible for creating standardized products which all competitors will be forced to offer. This will automatically favor large businesses, as in most markets smaller competitors distinguish themselves by offering products customized to the local markets. Then it piles on the reporting requirements to make sure they are not customizing their products, which would be a fixed cost per competitor, if not for the fact that large companies have a competitive advantage at filling out paperwork (it actually costs large companies less in dollar terms, as these reporting documents were often being filled out anyway for reporting to internal quality assurance, now they just change their internal format to match the governments and make a second copy).

Which is bad enough, but the government is even providing loopholes to the law on a case by case basis, which means regulators will have the authority to exempt individual customized products. And in accordance with regulatory capture theory, almost all of these exemptions will be issued to large firms which the regulators want to get a job with in the future.

So, now, it will be illegal for small competitors to customize their products to fit consumer desires, but large competitors will be free to do so thanks to their special relationship with the men holding guns.

I don't know, but I would bet that Citicorp and their ilk lobbied in favor of this legislation.

[Edited on March 7, 2010 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/7/2010 12:41:54 PM

Quote :

"as in most markets smaller competitors distinguish themselves by offering products customized to the local markets"

I don't see how this is hardly so. All competitors in all markets offered the gamut of products (regarding home loans). In certain markets certain products were more popular based on market dynamics.

Quote :

"it actually costs large companies less in dollar terms, as these reporting documents were often being filled out anyway for reporting to internal quality assurance"

Small lenders don't have their own internal QA systems? I'm currently going through the loan app process via a broker through a small lender based out of Iowa and I'll assure you I can't imagine the disclosure process being any more robust than it is. Thinking consolidating 2 accounts we'll use for the down payment into one would make for an easier close (we'd need to get a single check) has led us to have to disclose where a "large" deposit into one account came from. I imagine this is driven by FHA standards, but I'm having trouble seeing where a set of eyeballs making an extra check mark on a sheet (what does it take, an extra 3 seconds?) is going to drive costs, especially as in my case, this onus is being pushed on to a broker who will deal with lenders large and small equally anyway.

[Edited on March 7, 2010 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2010 12:52:25 PM

hot damn. the government forcing companies to offer certain products and forbidding them from offering others. how could that possible go wrong?

3/7/2010 2:08:48 PM

3/9/2010 9:34:12 PM

i remembered phil hartman was the snl reagan and then i was

3/9/2010 10:21:13 PM

Quote :

"But the CFPA is a handout to large corporations. When you ban product customization, it tends to be the products offered by the big firms that become the standards. Not to mention the obvious competitive advantage large firms have in dealing with regulation. As small competitors are driven out of the market, the large firms will be free to raise prices. As such, as is the norm in American governance, consumers will once again be screwed in the name of protecting consumers."

haha are you one of my members? this is exactly what i spend my day lobbying/messaging out to my members to tell their members of Congress.

Quote :

"^^ he has no idea - he's just making shit up on the fly. He will use any excuse to try to paint any regulation in a bad light. you can pretty much tell how bad any regulation will be for the banks by how hard they are lobbying against it, and I don't think there's any love lost for CFPA among the large banks."

thats because the large banks will LARGELY be unaffected by it.

but you failed to take into account the smaller financial institutions who, while having a smaller asset size, reach further into our society in a decentralized fashion.

ask any smaller banker or smaller business that extends credit how much they'd enjoy EXTRA regs on top of their current operations, reaching deeper into their pockets

3/11/2010 2:49:59 PM

hahahaha this is a riot.

WHAAAAAAAT???? You have to pay back the money u spend on credit???? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!! THIS MONEY IS SUPPOSEED TO BE FREEE!!!! SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME MY FREE MONEY!

3/11/2010 3:11:41 PM

Someone please think of the stupid people and stop the evil banks from giving them credit.

3/11/2010 3:12:58 PM

Quote :

" ask any smaller banker or smaller business that extends credit how much they'd enjoy EXTRA regs on top of their current operations, reaching deeper into their pockets"

So I guess its just cheaper for the small institutions to pile in with the big banks in opposition of this legislation rather than forming their own PAC and lobbying for legislation beneficial to themselves and not the TBTFs? You know...like asking for waivers from the new regs because they didn't fuck the economy with a rusty nail on the last go round?

3/11/2010 6:32:43 PM

^ I seriously doubt the big banks are opposed to this, as I said. You have given no reason as to why they would oppose a bill they probably wrote.

3/11/2010 11:04:58 PM

Quote :

"The industry’s heated reaction presages an intense lobbying battle that is already beginning. Opponents include JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo as well as thousands of regional and local banks that have close ties to lawmakers in every part of the country. But the opposition could also include countless mortgage lenders and independent mortgage brokers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/economy/01regulate.html

3/11/2010 11:48:09 PM

Odd that Citibank, the largest bank in the nation, did not chime in... or did they, and the New York Times neglected to mention the proponents of the bill?

3/12/2010 1:03:44 AM

I'm surprised, you generally aren't in the habit of saying things I can so easily and outrightly disprove, and even less often do you counter real evidence with warrant-less speculation.

3/12/2010 1:14:54 AM

I started in this thread by stating that I had very little information beyond my own speculation. I did not dispute your facts, but accepted them and presented another interpretation: clearly some large banks are against the law, but we would have expected that anyway. It will only be the banks that currently have regulatory capture that are in favor of the law. Just as Ford and Chrysler were against CAFE standards, a law which was referred to by commentators as the General Motors protection act. As such, I did not reevaluate my position when you told me what I expected.

But I could still be wrong. It is entirely possible that the bootlegger supporters of this law (see bootleggers and baptists) are not banks at all. But I refuse to believe such a pro-banking monopoly law could be that way entirely by accident.

3/13/2010 2:04:02 PM

Isn't it entirely possible that your speculation could be a bit off? Maybe it's not the godsend to big banks that you think it is.

3/13/2010 7:11:46 PM

Quote :

"Shaggy: Someone please think of the stupid people and stop the evil banks from giving them credit."

Yes, actually.

Someone please do this.

3/13/2010 11:59:02 PM

The pictures look nice, but I do wonder if it would be like saying "hey, lets put everyone under one agency called homeland security, and then all the agencies will play nice together"

3/14/2010 4:27:42 PM

^ do you have high-res versions of those charts?

And those kind-of remind me of the healthcare charts the right circulated for a while implying the new system would put the gov. between people and their doctors, compared to the status quo.

3/14/2010 4:47:30 PM

BridgetSPK, why do you want to stop the giving of credit to poor people? You know they don't actually have to pay it back, right? Or is that your point, that the lives of the poor are too easy and they must be forced to suffer further through overdraft fees, payday lenders, and loan sharks, their only remaining alternatives after you cut off their access to credit.

3/15/2010 1:13:43 AM

supplanter, if only that were the only thing that bill did, it might be OK. the notion that people need "protection" in this case is absurd. They already have protection enough as it is. The problem that occurred was that people were fucking stupid and over-extended themselves and, frankly, I don't see the gov't ever being able to fix that, nor should it.

3/15/2010 1:38:49 AM

Quote :

"The problem that occurred was that people were fucking stupid and over-extended themselves"

That's not what happened. A few large businesses overextended themselves and then that caused the economy to shell up and assume that everyone over extended themselves. This caused many people who would have been fine to default due to credit shrinkage.

3/15/2010 6:27:13 PM

I wasn't talking about the entirety of the financial crisis. Rather, the individual decisions that Obama says mean we need "more consumer protection."

3/15/2010 11:59:10 PM

^ you must not be familiar with humanity.

3/16/2010 12:16:58 AM

what, that there are absolute idiots out there? I recognize that. But there is ultimately nothing we can do to protect people that stupid. They will get fucked out of their money one way or another. A massive gov't power-grab here with NO thought to the consequences is not called for. Instead, maybe we could call for a class or two on personal-finance in high school. That would go a hell of a lot further than this new bureaucracy.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 12:20:04 AM

Quote :

"what, that there are absolute idiots out there? I recognize that. But there is ultimately nothing we can do to protect people that stupid."

Give them more information.

Quote :

"Instead, maybe we could call for a class or two on personal-finance in high school. That would go a hell of a lot further than this new bureaucracy."

I love that idea, I wish they'd drop all these stupid history and literature classes and give graduates information they can use, then maybe less would drop out.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 1:36:52 AM

Quote :

"Give them more information."

Not what this agency would be in the business of doing.

3/16/2010 1:50:31 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot it gives handouts to the banks that lobby against it right?

3/16/2010 8:27:09 AM

From reading the summary, its job will be to pick favorites. If you are right that all the banks are vehemently against the agency, facts that are still not in evidence especially when the only two banks you show are against it just happen to be the banks we know have relatively little political pull in Washington, that is not a requirement for regulatory capture. As the famous communist historian Gabriel Kolko demonstrated, agencies are staffed by people which favor the big players because they are most likely to have worked their before or will work there after leaving the government. Think of Goldman Sachs and how it has received such favorable treatment from Washington: a large chunk of the Treasury Department used to work there. It is unclear that the future regulators in this agency would ever find out who lobbied for or against its creation, all they will know is their own employment prospects and the bias that results.

3/16/2010 10:53:48 AM

Quote :

"So I guess its just cheaper for the small institutions to pile in with the big banks in opposition of this legislation rather than forming their own PAC and lobbying for legislation beneficial to themselves and not the TBTFs? You know...like asking for waivers from the new regs because they didn't fuck the economy with a rusty nail on the last go round?"

pretty sure the exact opposite of that is happening.

3/16/2010 11:02:24 AM

Quote :

"when the only two banks you show are against it just happen to be the banks we know have relatively little political pull in Washington"

Well first I'd like to point out that you are calling me out for only proving that two banks don't support it while you haven't shown any banks support it, so I'm still two up on your baseless speculation.
Secondly, how in the hell do we know they have so little political pull in washington? Were they both not able to get washington to give them $25 billion? Were they both not able to get huge mergers approved? What ever gave you the idea that they had less lobbying in washington than anyone else?

Quote :

"Think of Goldman Sachs and how it has received such favorable treatment from Washington: a large chunk of the Treasury Department used to work there."

Goldman Sachs only got $10 billion. That's $15 billion less than what companies that you claim "have no pull in washington" were able to get.

Proving you wrong is actually starting to get a bit old.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 5:39:25 PM

Quote :

"Give them more information."

What difference would that make? Idiots will be idiots. THAT'S THE POINT. Even Terri Gross admitted today on NPR that a lot of people got subprime loans who had no business getting them in the first place.

3/16/2010 8:33:13 PM

People got those loans because the industry failed. You can't blame demand for reacting to supply.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 10:06:53 PM

so the people bear no responsibility for their own fucking actions? give me a fucking break.

3/17/2010 12:16:14 AM

The mechanics of economics depend on this. For example, if we lowered the price of cigarettes and increased the supply, we'd have more smokers. Can you really blame them? They're just responding to the market. Like it or not, on aggregate, we're just cogs in the machine.

3/17/2010 12:51:47 PM

^ No, we are rational maximizers. Even if cigarettes were free many of us would still refuse to smoke, and some of us keep smoking even as our desire to smoke forces us to take second and third jobs to pay for it. We are all different with different substitution curves. Although I realize that makes your desired economic system more difficult

Quote :

"What ever gave you the idea that they had less lobbying in washington than anyone else?"

From interviews, the guy in charge of Wells Fargo claimed that he was forced to take the money under threat of adverse regulatory situations in the companies future sufficient to cost him his job. Someone with political pull does not get his job threatened by politicians.

Quote :

"Goldman Sachs only got $10 billion."

You really have not read anything about all this have you? TARP loans had to be paid back with interest, so Wells Fargo got nothing from TARP, neither did Goldman Sachs. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs received $5.6 billion in cash through the AIG bailout. That money is pure profit (and bonuses) as it will not be paid back
http://nicolasrapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/aigbailout.jpg

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/17/2010 4:03:18 PM

Quote :

"From interviews, the guy in charge of Wells Fargo claimed that he was forced to take the money under threat of adverse regulatory situations in the companies future sufficient to cost him his job."

It's funny how when someone purposes a conspiracy theory they will ignore or write off things that don't support their conspiracy theory then harp on meaningless or questionable things that do.

Quote :

"TARP loans had to be paid back with interest, so Wells Fargo got nothing from TARP, neither did Goldman Sachs."

How are loans "nothing"?

Quote :

"That money is pure profit"

AW SHIT PURE PROFIT!

3/18/2010 5:31:25 PM