prin

I agree that the GSE's played a role. Not disputing that. But this other aspect also played a role. Not sure how you don't think it influences behavior. It's easy to see, IMO. If you can originate bad mortgages and sell them off without worrying about whether or not there will be significant defaults, why would you care about the quality of the mortgages you're originating? You become less careful in the short term. Making sure they maintain some stake in these mortgages will make them more careful. And if the GSE's were such a huge issue, why weren't the issues you noted so prevalent before 2001? I don't recall there being such a large real estate crisis before then, yet the GSE's were operating in much the same way. In fact, many of the things that people point to as being the culprits (such as the CRA) have been around for decades. Anyway, we're not going to agree simply because you can't accept the fact that there could be at least one regulation that could make the free market work more cleanly. You're too ideological and it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

Countrywide is not the less guilty party. They're originating sh*tty mortgages to begin with. Don't know how you can't understand that.

Under the new rules, Countrywide would have been required to keep skin in the game. Essentially, the Countrywides of this country sold off those mortgages to the GSE's and then were hands off. Making sure they keep some skin in the game makes them more responsible. I agree that the GSE's need to be reformed. I've addressed this pretty thoroughly in my last couple of posts. Whether or not Countrywide still has "skin in the game" is not a matter of concern. The problem begins and ends with the GSEs who are essentially enabling the risky lending. Forcing Countrywide to have "skin in the game" is essentially punishing the less guilty party while letting the major root of the problem (the GSEs) get off scott free. If the GSE's were dealt with responsibly, rather than protected by Frank and Dodd who had close ties to Fannie and Freddie, it would not matter if Countrywide was "hands off" with those loans because they never would have been issued in the first place. Despite what Frank and Dodd want you to believe, the GSEs are the monster here. Not true. Countrywide originates the loans/mortgages and then bundles them up and sells them. If they maintain some interest in those bundled up loans/mortgages, it is MUCH more likely to be careful when it gives people those mortgages to begin with. Before Dodd-Frank, Countrywide could originate sh*tty mortgages and then sell them off without keeping any kind of skin in the game. This led to lower lending standards and poor supervision of lending practices. Now that they will share in both gains and losses they will be more careful. I am saying this from the perspective of a finance professional. I've had this conversation with people that are actually involved in investing real money. This rule will have a real impact.

Under the new rules, Countrywide would have been required to keep skin in the game. Essentially, the Countrywides of this country sold off those mortgages to the GSE's and then were hands off. Making sure they keep some skin in the game makes them more responsible. I agree that the GSE's need to be reformed.

What regulations are you referring to, then? I mentioned regulations pertaining to air and water as examples, but there are many others, including ones having to do with workplace safety and the safety of medicines and food. Not sure what regulations you are specifically referring to if not ones related to the environment, food, and drugs. In addition, it wasn't just the GSE's that were the problem. The originate and sell model applied to private entities as well. I think a problem with your argument is that it is way too broad and isn't nuanced enough.

That link does not provide very much information as far as what's being taken into consideration. I would like to see their estimated costs for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank before I give it any validity. It is difficult to quantify the fiscal damage that those two bills will introduce as they unfold over time. It sounds like to me that they are just tabulating OMB measurements. Nevertheless, Obama and George W. Bush have been more or less similar presidents in terms of their fiscal policy. Obama is receiving more heat about the regulatory burden in the country because the current economic climate is radically different from what Bush was facing during most of his presidency. The present circumstances demand that we start repealing regulations rather than creating new ones. Repealing Dodd-Frank in its entirety would be a great place to start. There is absolutely nothing beneficial about it. It completely ignores the root cause for the excessive risk taking on Wall Street, which was the "too low for too long" monetary policy. The bill more or less reinforces or even exacerbates the same problems that caused the crisis in the first place. Most notably, it essentially maintains the "too big too fail" doctrine. Does the article only consider regulation in the sense of Federal government regulations (the CFRs) that have already been codified? In that case, certain things like Obamacare would not be included as it doesn't really go into effect and start consuming funds until (was it 2014?). My suspicion is that it doesn't include either one from the way the article was written. The article was just a brief summary of the findings and contains no insight into the methods. The regulatory burden of both bills is likely not on the order of magnitude of a couple of billion (the crux of the study), but probably far greater than that. As stated, these studies cannot accurately take into account the lost productivity and lost innovation that results from the regulatory climate. There are certain products and ideas that could emerge in the marketplace but ultimately never do because of the weight of regulations that strangle their realization. If Obama wants to "stimulate" the economy, he should be spearheading a massive deregulatory campaign. Regulations account for just short of $2 trillion in lost productivity every year through compliance costs. But don't a lot of those "regulations" prevent abuse of our economy by those that just wrecked it 3 years ago ? If it costs a little bit more in regulation to prevent a depression than I am all for it. No, not at all. In fact, many of those existing regulations helped create the recession. This is something I've talked about at great length in the past, but generally speaking the housing bubble was not created because of a lack of regulations or loose regulations. It was almost entirely the result of bad monetary policy and lending standards enacted by the US Federal Reserve system that promoted excess speculation that never would have happened under free market conditions. Not entirely true. One of the causes of the recession was the "originate and sell" model whereby the originators of mortgages had zero skin in the game after they'd bundled together into bonds. The Dodd-Frank law requires originators to keep a 5% interest in the bonds they sell - this will make them much more careful about what kinds of mortgages they sell. This will reduce risk. This is a universally accepted positive of Dodd-Frank - all investors I've spoken with are in favor of this particular provision. There are other good provisions in this bill, too.

That link does not provide very much information as far as what's being taken into consideration. I would like to see their estimated costs for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank before I give it any validity. It is difficult to quantify the fiscal damage that those two bills will introduce as they unfold over time. It sounds like to me that they are just tabulating OMB measurements. Nevertheless, Obama and George W. Bush have been more or less similar presidents in terms of their fiscal policy. Obama is receiving more heat about the regulatory burden in the country because the current economic climate is radically different from what Bush was facing during most of his presidency. The present circumstances demand that we start repealing regulations rather than creating new ones. Repealing Dodd-Frank in its entirety would be a great place to start. There is absolutely nothing beneficial about it. It completely ignores the root cause for the excessive risk taking on Wall Street, which was the "too low for too long" monetary policy. The bill more or less reinforces or even exacerbates the same problems that caused the crisis in the first place. Most notably, it essentially maintains the "too big too fail" doctrine. Does the article only consider regulation in the sense of Federal government regulations (the CFRs) that have already been codified? In that case, certain things like Obamacare would not be included as it doesn't really go into effect and start consuming funds until (was it 2014?). My suspicion is that it doesn't include either one from the way the article was written. The article was just a brief summary of the findings and contains no insight into the methods. The regulatory burden of both bills is likely not on the order of magnitude of a couple of billion (the crux of the study), but probably far greater than that. As stated, these studies cannot accurately take into account the lost productivity and lost innovation that results from the regulatory climate. There are certain products and ideas that could emerge in the marketplace but ultimately never do because of the weight of regulations that strangle their realization. If Obama wants to "stimulate" the economy, he should be spearheading a massive deregulatory campaign. Regulations account for just short of $2 trillion in lost productivity every year through compliance costs. You fail to mention the benefits of regulation. There are many. If you deregulated everything as you would probably want we'd have dirtier air, dirtier water, more dangerous medication, etc. Regulation per se isn't bad... it's ineffective and excessive regulation and in some cases the lack of regulation that is the problem.

If the Heat can pick up a decent Center I think they'll roll. I don't care about seeding - just finish top 3 in the East and rest guys for the playoffs. Don't want to burn out our players on these frequent back to back games.

Speaking of Pinto... what ended up happening with him? I don't think he's played since we traded him. I know some people think he sucks, but he's not that bad. Good enough to be on a MLB roster, IMO.

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is. How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian? I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media. I didn't read the article, but I've heard those talking points thrown around and don't find them very convincing. They hinge mostly upon the number of regulations, which is rather immaterial. What really matters is the costs of the regulations be they compliance costs or lost productivity on the economy. In other words, the nature of the regulations and the severity of their consequences is what's most important. Obama has a poor track record in that regard. It also goes without saying that George W. Bush's own neglect of free-market policies does not excuse Obama from being a "authoritarian" president with regard to the economy. The article also takes costs into account. It's been lower under Obama. Could you post it? I find it hard to swallow that the man who signed Obamacare and Dodd-Frank into law would not be presiding over one of the most massive increases in regulatory costs on businesses. Furthermore, not every study measures regulatory costs in the same manner or accounts for them objectively. I was wrong. Costs have gone up, but only by a small percentage (hundredths of a percent) of GDP. http://www.bloomberg...-business.html# Regardless, people assume the cost of regulations under Obama have doubled or tripled. I am in financial services. Some parts of Dodd Frank are very needed to curb excessive risk taking (read: taking risks so large that you need a bailout). Some parts of Dodd Frank are absolute garbage. I think the good parts outweigh the bad, and over the longer term we will end up scrapping the bad rules. This was just necessary given what happened leading up to the financial crisis.

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is. How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian? I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media. I didn't read the article, but I've heard those talking points thrown around and don't find them very convincing. They hinge mostly upon the number of regulations, which is rather immaterial. What really matters is the costs of the regulations be they compliance costs or lost productivity on the economy. In other words, the nature of the regulations and the severity of their consequences is what's most important. Obama has a poor track record in that regard. It also goes without saying that George W. Bush's own neglect of free-market policies does not excuse Obama from being a "authoritarian" president with regard to the economy. The article also takes costs into account. It's been lower under Obama.

Horrible. I am sure this man has done horrible things to dozens of children. I think this kind of crime deserves the death penalty.

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is. How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian? I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media.

To anyone who might be interested in reading one account of how "authoritarianism" and "libertarianism" function in a society, I highly recommend Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In my opinion it is one of the most important works of political philosophy of the 20th century, but it is certainly not an easy read. Read it. Very interesting indeed. Also not easy to get through unless you have time. Ironically, you can take many of his arguments and use them to support government involvement.

Hippy That's literally EXACTLY where I scored.

Wait, he lives across an elementary school?

A rotation of JJ, Buehrle, Gio, Anibal, and Nolasco is one of the top in the NL for sure. If we sign either Reyes or Pujols we replace Logan's bat with a much better bat, which means our offense improves. That puts us in contention for the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that Logan doesn't belong on this team with his attitude. I say pull the trigger.

If I were a MLB player from Venezuela I'd strongly consider not going back during the off-season... or at the very least have a ton of security around you. I know Miggy has a sizeable security crew down there.

What I find funniest about this thread is that people actually responded to Hotcorner's post saying "shouldn't they just ban people from being poor instead?" lol

It's incredible to me that they first say the name will be revealed in May and here we are in September and nothing has been announced.

I am hearing mixed signals about the cause of this. Will be interesting to see what it is.

Great wins by both the U and FIU. I actually expect that both will be ranked in the top 25 by the end of the season. The Canes have a lot of talent and they seemed to be much better coached this season. FIU could well end up being undefeated this season.

I believe the standard in the U.S. is more stringent. We live in a big country so nothing is impossible, but this conviction most likely wouldn't be overturned in the U.S.

I think you are missing the point. Those major components (mandates, exchanges, etc) were propped up by pages and pages of new rules and regulations that were not fully understood until well after the bill was passed. It is clear that Congress did not have adequate time to read, understand, and debate the legislation before passing it. And the American people did not have enough time to understand it. It's ridiculous to assume that the language of these smaller components (over 1000 pages) conformed neatly with other health care proposals 15 years ago (during the Clinton years) and what exists in Massachusetts state law. Yeah, people got the overall gist of the legislation, but that doesn't mean that everything in it was understood. It really baffles me when liberals attempt to defend the "transparency" behind this bill's passage, especially since many of them were repulsed by how the GOP passed the Patriot Act. People on this very board were saying that the Obama admin would be among the most transparent in history because it would make use of CSPAN to televise negotiations. The final health care negotiations were conducted behind closed doors. I did not vote for "the other guy," but one can just as easily account for your defense of the the way this bill was passed by saying you voted for "this guy." If the GOP tried to do the very same thing, I'm certain there would be liberal outrage. That's the absurdity in all of this. I am sorry to inform you that if you wanted to make sure you understood every little detail of a large piece of legislation before you actually voted on it nothing would ever get done. Even the most simple law has arcane regulatory implications that Congress does not fully understand. This is how the process works. In practice we will find out what's not working and make the necessary changes as time goes on. And this happens in the, GASP!, PRIVATE sector, too. Companies adopt policies, procedures, etc., that the people that adopt them do not fully understand, both in terms of the actual steps and unintended consequences. This is why companies underperform, get in trouble with the law, get sued, and go bankrupt. Obviously you want top notch performance, but not getting it perfect from the get go is not an excuse for inaction. That's life. Penguino, your approach would produce no action whatsoever. Sounds like something an academic or someone not versed in the real world would say. (No offense).

Half of the major points of the health care reform law were originally Republican ideas championed by people like Bob Dole in the early 90's and then Governor Romney in Mass. Insurance exchanges? Check. Health care mandates? Check. I could go on. Most of you are against this stuff just because you voted for the other guy. Same thing applies to Republicans in Congress and running for President.