Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:17 am

First, about precedents...Everything, without any exception ever, that government does sets a precedent. That doesn't mean that precedent can't be overturned by either a superseding government body's ruling, or by the same body making new laws to specifically overturn it.  Until such time however, it seems that this body considers within its power the ability "tax" anyone in the EU with money in a bank if they feel it is warranted.
 
The odd thing here, since as you say, Cyprus is insignificant, then why bother with such a line crossing tactic?  If that's the answer when the situation is insignificant, I'd hate to see the solution when the situation is more dire.
 
As far as the alleged corruption and interest rates etc...Is that really relevant?  I mean shouldn't that be handled through the legislative regulatory process?  The given solution doesn't even seem to address that anyhow, but rather use it as justification, for which it hopelessly fails.  I mean if I put my money in a bank that is FDIC insured here, and that bank goes tits up because of malfeasance, why shouldn't the FDIC make me whole again?  Isn't it the FDIC's job to make sure banks whom they insure are meeting the standards for which they are willing to credit depositors should the bank not be able too?  For the FDIC to say, well that bank system was corrupt, when they have chosen to insure it, just means that they were derelict in their duties.
 
The same applies here, if the governing bodies didn't like the way Cyprus was running their banking systems there were legislative and regulatory solutions available, which is much preferable to these sort of closed door non representative sorts of punishments, which doesn't even address the culprits.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:31 pm

Why is it that banks that should fail get bailed out by governments and continue to operate? If the government has to bail out a bank, it should take possession of the bank, pay out any deposits, sell off the bank's assets, and close down the bank.

Maybe if the penalty for mismanaging a bank was the loss of the business instead of a big fat bailout cheque, stockholders might value sound management and a slimmer bottom line.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:37 pm

The government answer to that has been "too big too fail". And they did let many banks fail. Washington mutual was one of the more infamous. I tend to agree though, bailing out all of these companies that were doing stupid things may not have been the wisest choice in the long run, but it's an amazing amount of political cover that is hard to resist for politicians.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:08 pm

I favor nationalizing banks that are "too big to fail" and yet fail. The investors would have lost their money anyway, and investing in anything is never a sure thing. Then the government can sell it off again when/if the bank gets back in shape, recouping the taxpayers' money that was spent on it and perhaps even turning a profit.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:49 pm

Define investor.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:27 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Define investor.


All right, bad word. Shareholders? As in, the owners of the bank?
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:52 am

Koatanga wrote:Why is it that banks that should fail get bailed out by governments and continue to operate? If the government has to bail out a bank, it should take possession of the bank, pay out any deposits, sell off the bank's assets, and close down the bank.

Maybe if the penalty for mismanaging a bank was the loss of the business instead of a big fat bailout cheque, stockholders might value sound management and a slimmer bottom line.


Thats exactly how it works in Denmark. Well we did have some "bailout" packages, but that was for the entire bank sector. We have the governtment "company" called "Financial Stability" which takes over a bank that fails (unless another bank takes it over and merges it into its own). The depositors are the guaranteed deposits up to 100k €, and anyone in debt to the bank simply owe their money to the government. Financial Stability then sells off any healthy parts of the business.
The investors / stockholders / creditors of the bank that aren't depositors are left with nothing to show.

It works, quite well, witha great depositor security.
One group of depositors are exempt from the 100k € limit on deposits (last I heard) - municipalities and region bodies (ie the lower levels of government) - they have full security (imaginge if a municipality unning schools etc or the region running the hospitals suddenly didn't have their money because of a bank failing - right no healthcare, no paycheques, no nothing till a new tax is levied).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:58 am

That's how it works here too for 99.9% of banks, the exception being the "too big too fail" banks. Usually, it's because they are large conglomerates with reach far beyond just banking, and shutting them down would have significant negative repercussions, at least according to some government officials. Others think that banks should not be allowed to reach that state, they should be broken up if they reach that size.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:27 am

If that had been how it worked, the US government would now have been heavily invested in the banking sector.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:52 am

What do you mean? There's been some 400 or so banks that have failed since the crisis.


http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/fai ... klist.html
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:45 am

And are they now operating as government-owned banks?
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:11 am

No they were sold/merged into another bank, just as Nooska mentioned.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:20 am

Hmm, I may have misunderstood him. In Norway, around 1990 during that crisis, the government took over a lot of banks that were on the brink of failure. After they got back on their feet, they were sold off, sometimes even with profit.

Just figured that would be how the danes did it as well.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:39 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:40 am

I don't rightly remember what came before Financial Stability (which was founded in 2008) but I remember something similar to that previously.

In all fairness there is some criticism of the company for having too large expenditures and too little oversight, but from my chair those are political problems only.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Mannstein » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:30 am

Paxen wrote:Hmm, I may have misunderstood him. In Norway, around 1990 during that crisis, the government took over a lot of banks that were on the brink of failure. After they got back on their feet, they were sold off, sometimes even with profit.

Just figured that would be how the danes did it as well.

In Portugal it's said...
"The better way to steal from a Bank, is to manage it"

We did a poor job in taking over the (almost) only bank that fell so far.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Mannstein
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:40 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Cogglamp » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Fridmarr wrote:First, about precedents...Everything, without any exception ever, that government does sets a precedent. That doesn't mean that precedent can't be overturned by either a superseding government body's ruling, or by the same body making new laws to specifically overturn it.  Until such time however, it seems that this body considers within its power the ability "tax" anyone in the EU with money in a bank if they feel it is warranted.


I don't buy this at all. Look at the differences between how the administration handled Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG and GM. So each one of those was a precedent until the one after it changed the precedent to another precedent. Same administration and different outcomes in each one of those.

We've had 5 euro zone countries asked to be bailed out so far. Spain asked for its banks to be bailed out or ("recapitalized") to the tune of 40 billion euros. However, Spain's precedent wasn't applied in the case of Cyprus. Much like the same precedent wasn't used in Ireland's, Greece's and Portugal's bailout. I think the ECB/EU is paying lip service to the notion of precedence but this is being done on an ad hoc basis.
 
Fridmarr wrote:The odd thing here, since as you say, Cyprus is insignificant, then why bother with such a line crossing tactic?  If that's the answer when the situation is insignificant, I'd hate to see the solution when the situation is more dire.


Cyprus asked to be bailed out 9 months ago. That's why they bothered. Also, you couldn't do this with a Spain or Italy as this would destroy the EU and Euro which is why I don't think this sets a precedent. You can't take this model and apply it to medium-sized or large-sized economies in the EU. Unless of course you want to blow it all up.
 
Fridmarr wrote: As far as the alleged corruption and interest rates etc...Is that really relevant?  I mean shouldn't that be handled through the legislative regulatory process?  The given solution doesn't even seem to address that anyhow, but rather use it as justification, for which it hopelessly fails.  I mean if I put my money in a bank that is FDIC insured here, and that bank goes tits up because of malfeasance, why shouldn't the FDIC make me whole again?  Isn't it the FDIC's job to make sure banks whom they insure are meeting the standards for which they are willing to credit depositors should the bank not be able too?  For the FDIC to say, well that bank system was corrupt, when they have chosen to insure it, just means that they were derelict in their duties.
 
The same applies here, if the governing bodies didn't like the way Cyprus was running their banking systems there were legislative and regulatory solutions available, which is much preferable to these sort of closed door non representative sorts of punishments, which doesn't even address the culprits.


For all the griping about too much regulation, the number of regulators per bank is laughably small. In America and in Europe, regulators are playing catch up in a game where they are blind folded, have their hands tied and the opposition has a 4 year head start. Add in some murky accounting and you have yourself an issue where you can't possibly review all the information being provided. My guess is that Cyprus had fallen through the cracks and didn't get noticed until they raised their hand and asked for a bailout.

For me, a savings interest rate 4x higher than a safe haven account (US, UK, Germany) throws up massive red flags to their credit quality of the assets and their internal risk controls. This should have been seen coming from a distance but with Greece, Italy and Spain flaring up, the ECB didn't have the resources to look at it all. The smaller savers have been made whole which is probably the right thing to do but if I were Malta, Luxembourg or Estonia, I'd be quaking in my boots as they're all off shore havens.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:25 pm

Cogglamp wrote:I don't buy this at all. Look at the differences between how the administration handled Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG and GM. So each one of those was a precedent until the one after it changed the precedent to another precedent. Same administration and different outcomes in each one of those.

We've had 5 euro zone countries asked to be bailed out so far. Spain asked for its banks to be bailed out or ("recapitalized") to the tune of 40 billion euros. However, Spain's precedent wasn't applied in the case of Cyprus. Much like the same precedent wasn't used in Ireland's, Greece's and Portugal's bailout. I think the ECB/EU is paying lip service to the notion of precedence but this is being done on an ad hoc basis.


There's nothing to buy, I'm merely stating how precedents work. Establishing a precedent in one instance, doesn't make its use obligatory in any other instance, it merely means that it can be used. The different treaments of those banks didn't change the precedents before them, and something being done on an ad hoc basis is a perfectly normal way to establish a precedent.

If we were to ask the UN for a bailout, and the UN would only agree to help if our gov't agreed to tax deposits to fund a portion of it, including those deposits under the FDIC threshold, that would establish a new precedent. First, that the FDIC lacks power to back up their guarantee. Secondly that the UN, a body which is not elected by our people, has the power to impose its will on our tax policy. That would hold unless the court overturned the action or the legislature passed legislation forbidding it in the future. Whether the UN were to ever use that power again or not, is irrelevant.

Cogglamp wrote:Cyprus asked to be bailed out 9 months ago. That's why they bothered. Also, you couldn't do this with a Spain or Italy as this would destroy the EU and Euro which is why I don't think this sets a precedent. You can't take this model and apply it to medium-sized or large-sized economies in the EU. Unless of course you want to blow it all up.

That doesn't answer the question. I didn't ask why they were bailed out, but rather why such an extreme solution was used for what you described as very minor problem. The fact that implementing this solution in a bigger banking system would destroy the EU ought to send up those "massive red flags". It just sound to me like Cyprus is being treated a bit harshly partially because of its size and partially because of those behaviors you cited earlier, and neither seems to be a valid justification to me.

Cogglamp wrote: For all the griping about too much regulation, the number of regulators per bank is laughably small. In America and in Europe, regulators are playing catch up in a game where they are blind folded, have their hands tied and the opposition has a 4 year head start. Add in some murky accounting and you have yourself an issue where you can't possibly review all the information being provided. My guess is that Cyprus had fallen through the cracks and didn't get noticed until they raised their hand and asked for a bailout.

For me, a savings interest rate 4x higher than a safe haven account (US, UK, Germany) throws up massive red flags to their credit quality of the assets and their internal risk controls. This should have been seen coming from a distance but with Greece, Italy and Spain flaring up, the ECB didn't have the resources to look at it all. The smaller savers have been made whole which is probably the right thing to do but if I were Malta, Luxembourg or Estonia, I'd be quaking in my boots as they're all off shore havens.
Regulators and regulations are not the same thing, and there does exist automated means to catch certain things. I realize that if a bank is purposely up to malfeasance that it would be much tougher to catch, however, you are on one hand suggesting that this behavior was public common knowledge throwing up "massive red flags" and on the other suggesting it fell through the cracks, you can't have it both ways. Either way though, that is moot. I wasn't suggesting that the behavior should have been caught, but rather it's not justification for going after the guaranteed money. If you are going to certify the bank as insured and then not stand behind that certification the moment its needed, then what good are you? That's very troublesome behavior.

Also, you would only quake in your boots if a precedent had been set.

It sounds like they changed the terms up a bit, so that now they are only going after the non guaranteed money (above 100,000). Not that this seems like a good solution, but that is a major difference. The bank was likely to go under completely anyhow, so this is at least better than the alternative for the deposits above the threshold, and doesn't cross a very significant line. I still don't see why they can't go down the same road that they have with bigger countries, that at least allows the representatives of the people to implement the terms, to choose what to cut, and how to source the revenue.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:50 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:05 am

http://www.adn.com/2013/03/28/2844145/r ... k=misearch#storylink=cpy

Yeah, I mean no disrespect when I use derogatory ethnic slurs all the time....

Someone should tell republicans to just. shut. the. fuck. up.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:15 am

Shoju wrote:Someone should tell republicans to just. shut. the. fuck. up.


Please no. I love it when Republicans screw things up!
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:49 pm

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/3 ... elfare-in/

Not sure how I feel about this... I mean.... I'm all to make sure welfare goes to people that actually deserve it, and I want parents to put more effort in the education of their kids... but... not sure "Do well in school, or your parents will starve and you'll be on the street" is the proper way to go.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Flex » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:52 pm

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/31/bill-tying-student-performance-to-welfare-in/

Not sure how I feel about this...


We don't want those people taking our money.
We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.
User avatar
Flex
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:54 pm

Flex wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/31/bill-tying-student-performance-to-welfare-in/

Not sure how I feel about this...


We don't want those people taking our money.


But hey, it's liberals the ones promoting class warfare, right?
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:43 pm

In place, the bill would encourage parents to be more concerned with their children's education, but how would it pan out? Would people be incentivised to remain on welfare because reducing their need for assistance would cut into the time they spend doing their kids' homework?

Are people in the welfare cycle - that is, 2nd or higher generation on welfare - likely have adequate schooling to teach their children anything? Or are they more likely to provide incorrect information or confuse their kids? If the parent dropped out before or during high school, is the parent qualified to tutor a child through to the end of high school?

Regardless of the flowery prose in the bill of rights, all men, and women, are not created equal. Some have higher intelligence and learning capacity, and some have lower. One likes to assume there are genetics involved - I have a bright daughter because my wife and I are both bright - the converse would also be true. Do you punish the parents of an 85-IQ child because he's not keeping up with the rest of the class?

By what standards are the children judged? Is the same yardstick to be used in New York city as in rural Arkansas? If not, could it - and would it - be biased by expectations or machinations of the people creating the yardstick? Are people taught with "Texas textbooks" expected to give the same answers as people taught form normal textbooks? Can this be used to provide incentive to force kids to abide by "Texas textbooks" when they know differently?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest