Illegal Immigration

[capsulecorpjx]

When I said charge them, I was speaking about a serious charge. I assume your insult was because you had assumed I had not read http://www.sec.gov/litigation/compla.../comp21489.pdf. Wrongo.

So if we are going to get insulting capsule, what law did they break, it says it in the filing. If you need help I can will be glad to help. And while backstroking because you brought a knife to a gun battle, tell me what the max penalties are? Once again I can help if you can't find it.

It says SEC charges Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre with securities fraud and misleading clients.

I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling.

You're defending them because Limbaugh and Fox News are defending them, and they're defending them because they're always pro-corporation.

[dbasnett]

It says SEC charges Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre with securities fraud and misleading clients.

I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling.

You're defending them because Limbaugh and Fox News are defending them, and they're defending them because they're always pro-corporation.

OK, you can make billions and if you are caught the penalty is a $500,000 fine. Wow, I bet that hurts. But you didn't bother reading the actual law did you. Let me guess, you are a Keith Obermouth fan, or Bill Mahr fan.

That doesn't come from Fox, that comes from your laws. I don't watch the bufoons on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, just for the record. As close as I come to a news source is John Stewart. I'll give you the BBC, they seem to have not lost sight of what news is.

[dbasnett]

That's not funny... I was just reading something over the weekend where car manufacturers are looking into seeing if there is a way to disable cell phones in a moving vehicle. And THAT is with out legislation.

And what point did I miss?

-tg

"Texting while driving is about 6 times more likely to result in an accident than driving while intoxicated."
"In 2008 almost 6,000 people were killed and a half-million were injured in crashes related to driver distraction. "

Sounds like we need a law to me? Are you disagreeing?

[capsulecorpjx]

OK, you can make billions and if you are caught the penalty is a $500,000 fine. Wow, I bet that hurts. But you didn't bother reading the actual law did you. Let me guess, you are a Keith Obermouth fan, or Bill Mahr fan.

That doesn't come from Fox, that comes from your laws. I don't watch the bufoons on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, et al, just for the record. As close as I come to a news source is John Stewart.

I read the document you sent me. It is true that SEC is charging Goldman with securities fraud and misleading their clients.

I don't know what you're arguing with me about.

[dbasnett]

I read the document you sent me. It is true that SEC is charging Goldman with securities fraud and misleading their clients.

I don't know what you're arguing with me about.

"I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling." $500,000 max fine against billions. That is serious? Your kidding right?

Vote for the Not Incumbent party for several years(10-20). Voting smart isn't working out well.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Every news source has a bias. That's nature and can't be avoided. If each source acknowledged its bias, then the news would be more valuable. I have no problem reading left or right, and read both, but I want them to state what their bias is up front. Those who claim to be in the center aren't. Of course, a truly balanced media source would have individuals from all sides, which would mean that individuals would be biased and the source would be a muddle. These days, of course, whatever view you have you will find plenty of others who share your views. It used to be that you were always a part of your community, which, if small enough, could make you a minority of one. Now, you can be part of such a large party (the internet) that you never need to associate with anybody who doesn't confirm your views. Since we already have a bias in our thinking where we assume that the majority believes as we do on any subject, the internet reinforces our expectations. Better yet, you can shout down anything that doesn't agree with you.

Having said that, I would add that tv news is all tripe. I watch tv news about once a year, on average. It now consists of one or two actual stories lightly covered, followed by a series of pseudo-news stories about pop culture.

So you can have left, right, or tv (on the bottom and digging deeper).

[homer13j]

Yes you did.... and you did it again....

You're defending them because Limbaugh and Fox News are defending them, and they're defending them because they're always pro-corporation.

Good Lord, kid, give it a rest already. And go back and reread post #22...

I guess the possibility that staunch anti-government conservatives can actually think for themselves is just too much for some minds to comprehend.

[homer13j]

...And for the record I do not watch Fox News. I don't even have cable TV.

If you want to get me to watch the news I have only two words: Melissa Theuriau. :drool:



I don't speak a word of French, yet somehow I don't really care...

[capsulecorpjx]

"I think those are serious charges and justifies the Senate grilling." $500,000 max fine against billions. That is serious? Your kidding right?

Vote for the Not Incumbent party for several years(10-20). Voting smart isn't working out well.

Well that's where you and I differ.

Go ahead, keep defending those wall street firms, while they lie and screw everyone, even their own clients over.

[dbasnett]

Well that's where you and I differ.

Go ahead, keep defending those wall street firms, while they lie and screw everyone, even their own clients over.

How am I defending Wall St. firms? My point was that the Senate was having another Carnival side show so that people like you would pat them on the back for doing a good job, when in fact they allowed this to happen, and the Wall St firms are going to get a wrist slap.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What you have to remember is that Goldman Sachs was only doing what most of the other banks having been doing for years. This kind of stuff is standard practise in investment banks.

While morally it is obviously wrong, i would be surprised if they actually get found guilty of anything. From what i have heard of the evidence, it doesn't look exactly water-tight.

Rather than trying to hammer a Bank for pretty much doing what was seen as acceptable in the market, we (as in all countries) should be looking at tightening up rules at the banks so that it can't happen again.

The biggest danger is that we concentrate so much on hammering the Banks that regulation gets watered down and the Banks are basically allowed to carry on with business as usual.

What would happen if there was another financial crisis in say 5 or 10 years time, i cant see the people accepting that we have to bail out the banks again there will be rioting on the streets !!

I still don't get this obsession with anti-Big government, let the free market decided attitude. From what i have seen, yes governments can be inefficient and corrupt, but big business is often worse, It really does look out only after its own interests and it's shareholders no-one else's !

The whole banking crises happened basically because the banks said, we don't need any regulation, regulation is bad, we should be allowed to invest as we see fit, let the markets decided and lobbied the hell out of government to get regulation removed or relaxed. (In fact if there is one thing that would improve politics irredeemably is a ban on all lobbyists and specifically a ban all donations made to political parties by lobbyists) As we have seen Greed then rules as these banks see more and more ways to make quick money they ignore all the risks involved as they know at the end of the day it wont be them footing the bill !!

Now if that wasn't about as big a failure of "let the market decided" ideal then i don't know what is.

I am not saying that you need Government interference on everything but surely on the need to regulate the financial markets we can agree !

[techgnome]

I think where GS went wrong, and what seems to be the brunt of alleged grilling from Congress is to whom should they be answering to? The shareholders, for whom they are making money with the scheme? OR to their investors, to whom they were selling the junk, so that they could make money for their shareholders. That's where GS got snagged. Based on that scheme, the two responsibilities were diametrically opposed to each other. Sound investments would have been detrimental to the profits for the share holders. The profits of the shareholders were at the detriment of the shareholders. I'm sure that when it comes down to it, several things are going to be apparent: 1) GS didn't do anything legally wrong. 2) They will get a slap on the wrist, if anything. 3) We'll end up with more regulation that's going to put a further choke hold on the system. 4)It'll become safer to invest in Greece.

I am not saying that you need Government interference on everything but surely on the need to regulate the financial markets we can agree !

You'll have to accept that we'll agree to disagree.

-tg

[NeedSomeAnswers]

You'll have to accept that we'll agree to disagree.

What, you really think that the financial markets should just be allowed to do whatever they want ?

that Credit Default swaps and other financial products like it are ok ?

that the recent financial crisis had nothing to do with lack of regulation ?

We'll end up with more regulation that's going to put a further choke hold on the system

Are we talking about the same thing here ? the Banks have been making unprecedented amount of money out of some of the most risky activity, which they are only able to do because they got government to relax regulations.

If i was to go to a betting shop and gamble my monthly pay away, i wouldn't expect the tax payer to bail me out, and yet you are saying we should for the banks ?

Are you telling me that the investment banks betting on the most risky activity in the market with tax payers money is ok ? because that is exactly what they were doing, specifically the banks that also had retail deposit arms.

Not only were they betting on this risky activity they were being actively rewarded, the Banks were paying there own employees huge bonuses to engage in as much of the most risky activity as possible

I don't know about in the US, but in 1 major UK bank they fired their Risk Manager for pointing out some of these risks to them and replaced him with a banker with no training in risk management at all as they felt that listening to the risk manager would effect their profits.

The Banks have not shown any desire to change this activity without government regulation, so why wouldn't we regulate them on this issue ?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd say that I agree most with Homer's post #48.

Other than that, banks do need regulation. They are not fundamentally private businesses. If a tractor factory fails, lots of people are out of work, but the damage is contained. If the major investment banks fail, the whole economy could go down with disastrous results. Companies are treated as people, but large companies should be treated as pre-moral people. They are following an unenlightented self interested path. If that impacts few other people, then they may do so, but when they have the country by the pols, there needs to be a constraint on their actions.

As for banning lobbyists, that's unworkable. Everybody who has an opinion is a lobbyist, some are just richer and/or more effective than others.

[homer13j]

I still don't get this obsession with anti-Big government, let the free market decided attitude.

Read The Federalist Papers, and (if it is at all possible) try to do it while looking at the British government from an American perspective. Our country's inherent distrust of government is a direct result of British rule.

The whole banking crises happened basically because the banks said, we don't need any regulation, regulation is bad, we should be allowed to invest as we see fit, let the markets decided and lobbied the hell out of government to get regulation removed or relaxed.

:facepalm: Sounds like you work for the Obama administration. Or at least you should...

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:

This whole mess started in 1977 under the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act which gave Congress the power to punish banks for "failing to meet the credit needs of low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." As a direct result of this legislation lending rules were relaxed, income verification was suspended and a whole mess of people were given subprime mortgages that they could not possibly pay back.

Complicit in this mess were the government-owned mortgage finance firms known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which encouraged more subprime lending by constantly changing the criteria by which high-risk borrowers qualified for home loans. They then bought up those bad loans meaning they were now backed by the U.S. taxpayers.

All this was justified as a way of increasing home ownership among minorities and the poor. Any bank that dared to question the ability of a minority to actually pay back the money lended to them was an invitation for the federal government to slap the offending bank with a huge, crippling lawsuit. So bad mortgage after bad mortgage were approved under threat of the government to make life very difficult for any bank that did not comply.

The mess wasn't caused by a lack of government regulation, it was caused precisely BY government regulation.

But congressional Democrats (and their willing accomplices in the media) would hear none of that. Go back and watch the video I posted in post #19 to see the truth for yourself in the Democrats' own words. When warned of the impending meltdown elected idiots like Barney Frank insisted that absolutely nothing was wrong and it was just a bunch of mean Republicans who didn't want black people to have houses.

But hey, don't let pesky facts get in the way of a good anti-bank rant and the predictable calls for even more government meddling.

Now the bubble has burst and idiots like Frank are desperately (and apparently successfully looking at some of these posts) trying to pass the blame off to the private sector - specifically Goldman Sachs.

[homer13j]

I'd say that I agree most with Homer's post #48.

I'm glad there's something we all can agree on...

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I'd say that I agree most with Homer's post #48.

I second that, in fact i am off to France this summer and i can confirm that many of the women look exactly like that :0).

[capsulecorpjx]

How am I defending Wall St. firms? My point was that the Senate was having another Carnival side show so that people like you would pat them on the back for doing a good job, when in fact they allowed this to happen, and the Wall St firms are going to get a wrist slap.

Well then I agree with you 100%. Yes, obviously the Senate is putting on a show. They most likely are not genuine, and will not pass any meaningful reform.

Just that I believe Goldman deserves the grilling they get in the Media and Senate, though it might be fake outrage in the Senate.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

:facepalm: Sounds like you work for the Obama administration. Or at least you should...

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:

I don't disagree with what you are saying (surprisingly) but you are looking at just one part of the situation. I am well aware of the issue with selling sub prime mortgages in the US, but this financial crisis is not just a US problem it is a World problem, and we don't have the same legislation in the UK or in any European country and yet we have been hit just as hard, because of the banks activities.

To say the banks didn't not know the risk that was involved in these sub prime mortgages is like Clinton saying i did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Many purely investment banks got caught out gambling on the Credit Default Swaps (Big bundles of sub-prime mortgages which have been given a nice big gold star by the Credit agencies) and they are complicit in not only creating these financial products but in then gambling heavily on them first to go up then shorting them when the crisis started to take hold.

The problem with the Financial markets now days is that they are global, and 1 very bad idea like the sub prime one you mentioned above, if the Banks are able to sell these financial product however they like then it can have massive effects on countries around the world.

It is quite possible that some other country could do the same as the US on sub-prime in the future, and then if the banks act the same, what protection do you have ?

[techgnome]

And yet another example of the feds sticking their nose where it doesn't belong:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/...itrust_inquiry

-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:

Yeah, take a complex issue and distill it down to one action that conservatives can use to blame the whole thing on liberal policy. Then wait thirty plus years for this problem to suddenly bring down the system and make it appear that was the whole issue...or even the most significant part...or even a piece of the issue.

With that amount of lead time between cause and effect in a chaotic system, you might as well blame the whole crisis on ME, as you would be entirely as justified in doing so, mathematically.

About the Community Reinvestment Act described, due to the lag between cause and effect, one or both of these statements are true, and the inverse of both of them are definitely false:


1) The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the current financial crisis.

2) We have no possible way to determine whether the Community Reinvestment Act had any measurable impact on the current financial crisis.

It doesn't matter whether you are right or left. This is just math. As much as people desperately want to believe otherwise, those two statements are the only ones you can viably choose from regarding the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act. You can have one, the other, or both, but that's all.

[dbasnett]

The actual law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12..._12_10_30.html

[dbasnett]

The actual law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12..._12_10_30.html

12 USC 30 2905 is just a holding spot for other agencies to fill in the blank. Here is the link for the FDIC's interpretation

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...45_main_02.tpl

Nothing like facts to clog up the pipes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

THOSE facts will certainly clog pipes. From those links, could you narrow down a few parts that are pertinent? How many hours can we spend reading that stuff before we find something relevant?

I used to read bills when my mother was in the legislature. In general, they make drying paint interesting, but there is always a portion that is of interest, as long as you can wade through the chaff to get to it.

[homer13j]

Yeah, take a complex issue and distill it down to one action that conservatives can use to blame the whole thing on liberal policy. Then wait thirty plus years for this problem to suddenly bring down the system and make it appear that was the whole issue...or even the most significant part...or even a piece of the issue.

Critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been sounding the alarm for nearly three decades and were ignored, impugned and ridiculed by the media and powerful government interests.

You make it out like it took thirty years for the situation to come to light when in reality there were plenty of people out there warning of the impending crisis but nobody paid any attention. Heck, even Bill Clinton himself placed the blame on corrupt Democrats.

The main reason it took so long was the influx of new home buyers reduced or eliminated the regular cyclical downturns in the housing market that would normally expose such shoddy economics but as long prices kept spiraling upward the self-regulating market forces were very limited in effectiveness until the bubble grew so big it burst in a huge calamity and the inevitable finger-pointing began.

And so I edited down what was a much-too-lengthy post to include only the pertinent facts of the root cause of the crisis. I wasn't about to write a novel about it and so that is now being used to discount the facts I presented above. Nice try though...

Another example of how to piss off a liberal by simply speaking the truth.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The fact that things were complained about for thirty years is irrelevant to the point. You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system. It doesn't matter which side you stand on, saying that was the cause is simply false. Instead, you could say "I think this was the cause." or "I think this was one of the factors." Either one would be sound, but they are both weak tea.

You may be as sure of that cause as you are of lolcats, but from a mathematical perspective, you are simply wrong. In a chaotic system you can only infer causality if the effect is dramatic and immediate. This may have been dramatic, but it was anything but immediate, and without immediacy any inference is nothing but a guess...unless you are god.....are you? I sure hope not, that would suck.

The fact that people were crying about it for thirty years has no bearing. When the collapse didn't happen within a few years of the act, its impact became completely lost.

On the other hand, this is a battle I have been fighting for decades. I have known otherwise highly intelligent post-docs who would say, "Ok I recognize that chaos math means that this inference is invalid, but I am going to pretend that chaos doesn't exist because I am invested in my inference." Others would say something more like, "Ok, so I can't make that inference, what am I supposed to do?"

That second question is actually a pretty fundamental one. Humans are good at only one thing: Pattern recognition. We infer cause and effect at the drop of a hat, right or wrong. Now that we have a situation where we can prove that inferring causality is invariably wrong under well defined criteria, it causes us to flounder. Most people get around the floundering by simply choosing an inference, asserting that it is TRUTH, and generally accusing anybody who doesn't agree with them of having an ideological bent, as you have suggested.

I certainly have a well known ideological bent. It has nothing to do with this. The assertion you are making is demonstably false on mathematical grounds.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Another example of how to piss off a liberal by simply speaking the truth.

You still haven't explained how Banks around the world have become involved in the crisis, and how it has effected most of the world economy ?

Most of the worlds banks have nothing to do with the American housing market apart from the fact the current regulation says they can gamble on risky financial products as much as they want without any payback.

And you still haven't explained how in a global financial market we are supposed to guard against risk. You cant guard against the policies of other countries (because i can damn well tell you that there hasn't' been the same mis-selling of sub-prime mortgages in the UK) so how do you stop Banks behaving the same thing again if something similar happens in China or India or one of the other big developing nations ?

Oh and if it is the US government that is at fault for this crisis and not the banks then should the rest of the world be compensated by the US government ?

[dbasnett]

"You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system."

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

I would guess that the "climate change is our fault" drum beaters don't like that either.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

There is a slight difference between a 30 year gap and what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks which we would have experienced probably within 6 months.

Do you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks then ?

[dbasnett]

There is a slight difference between a 30 year gap and what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks which we would have experienced probably within 6 months.

Do you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks then ?

No I don't. Do you really think they could predict the future of one of the most chaotic systems ever devised by man? What was a fact was that their buddies were going under if they didn't bail them out.

And before you ask, yes they should have bailed out GM, they make Corevettes.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

No I don't

You do understand the consequences of that don't you ?

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them. There is no separation between Investment bank and retail bank any more they are all gambling on the market, and as for Businesses they would have been in the same situation, if a business had millions of pounds in a bank then if the bank failed they would lose all their money !

Personally i would have liked us to not have had to bail out the banks, but under the current system if the banks fail, virtually everything else goes with them too.

If you want to be able to allow banks to fail then at the very minimum you have to have something in place that says peoples saving and deposits are safe so that the bank can fail without hurting the average citizen and the average business, currently there is very little in place to protect businesses and the consumer.

[dbasnett]

You do understand the consequences of that don't you ?

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them. There is no separation between Investment bank and retail bank any more they are all gambling on the market, and as for Businesses they would have been in the same situation, if a business had millions of pounds in a bank then if the bank failed they would lose all their money !

Personally i would have liked us to not have had to bail out the banks, but under the current system if the banks fail, virtually everything else goes with them too.

If you want to be able to allow banks to fail then at the very minimum you have to have something in place that says peoples saving and deposits are safe so that the bank can fail without hurting the average citizen and the average business, currently there is very little in place to protect businesses and the consumer.

I am certain that is one opinion. I am also certain that if anyone could ACTUALLY predict the future we would have a name for them.

I agree we need reform.

Wasn't the Government already "regulating" financial institutions? Wasn't there an economist that testified before the SEC about Bernie Mad-off-with-your-money.

I vote, but have stopped voting for the incumbent. If we all did so we would get real reform. It is actually harder on lobbyist when there are new people.

[FunkyDexter]

I've always taken the view that my government has a responsibility to protect me from everyone except myself. From that viewpoint I'll throw my two-pennorth in on the trhee main discussion points (which, strangely, no longer includes immigration)

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.



On the whole 'Mexico was nicked' thing: yes, historically it was. However, after a couple of hundred years, anyone trying to protest that it should be given back is like us Brits trying to demand Calais and Aquitaine back from the French.

[dbasnett]

I've always taken the view that my government has a responsibility to protect me from everyone except myself. From that viewpoint I'll throw my two-pennorth in on the trhee main discussion points (which, strangely, no longer includes immigration)

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.



On the whole 'Mexico was nicked' thing: yes, historically it was. However, after a couple of hundred years, anyone trying to protest that it should be given back is like us Brits trying to demand Calais and Aquitaine back from the French.

1 - The technology exists to know where a phone is at any time, so it shouldn't be hard to just have them disconnect calls / text while the vehicle is in motion. I suspect not enough people have died for us to really want that.

2 - You need new friends. I went to a lot of places, including the State of CA, and never insisted.

3 - Could we start with monitoring the monitors? How about a restriction on taking private jobs in the industry you regulate for some period of time after you leave, 5-10 years.

My personal opinion is that the government lost track of the common citizen. I am almost 100% certain that their motto is "Show me the money...".

Vote for the Not Incumbent Party. Imagine what it would be like if every incumbent lost, would they get the message then?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.

Right could resist replying,

1, Not that i am in disagreement but how the hell are you gonna police it ?

As for -

The technology exists to know where a phone is at any time, so it shouldn't be hard to just have them disconnect calls / text while the vehicle is in motion

i suspect that this would be a hard sell to pass as law, most law abiding people don't want there phone companies recording and checking where they are at all times. Yes they do log some data currently about the phone mast you are connected too, but this would be far more information.

2, I totally agree with Mr Funky on this, Pubs and bars on there own if given the choice there would be Zero non-smoking establishments. The Smoking establishment would get greater custom as both smokers & non-smokers would go to them, but for a non-smoking establishment you cut out half your market. The non-smoking establishments would be committing commercial suicide. And anyway smoking is a public health issue and the smoking ban is in the public interest.

3, i have already commented on this so i wont repeat myself.

4, Immigration (well that what the thread was about originally), It seems to me that all the developed countries now have a problem with immigration. Immigration has always happened and the US in particular is a nation of (fairly recent in historical terms) immigrants, i don't know that US issues nearly so well but in the UK we do have a problem with the sheer numbers of immigrants.

I am actually normally in favour of a more relaxed immigration policy but at the moment i think that we should probably be letting a lesser percentage into the country than we are.

[techgnome]

1 - the problem with that, is not policing it... but how do you know if a phone is in a vehicle or not? If it's in motion, it could be by bus, train or even walking... And then you have passengers. What? Everyone is cut off? Hardly seems fair.

2 - Bars - I've got no issue with allowing smoking at bars... isn't that part of their very essence? Oddly, when the local muni banned smoking at such establishments, there was a huge uproar, people claiming that their bars would lose business and they would be forced to close. Two years later and the only bars that have shut are ones that had their liquor license pulled due to fights and other police-involving incidents. To the best of my knowledge, none have closed because they lost their smokers. Just goes to show that people will want to get drunk no matter what.

3 - And then who is going to monitor those monitoring the monitors watching the banks? Where does it end? That's part of the problem now. Too much oversight and not enough accountability. Want to straighten things out? Let a few firms fail and fail miserably... Then maybe the rest of the industry will wake up and go "OH carp! Maybe we shouldn't be doing that." As it is now, these firms are acting with impunity since the gov't will save their sorry butt.

4) I say militarize the borders... that's the job of the military, isn't it? To defend the borders of the country from invaders? Seems harsh, but so far nothing else has worked. Maybe it's time for a little kick butt.

-tg

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Want to straighten things out? Let a few firms fail and fail miserably...

I agree, but currently if they fail they would take all our cash with them. I would like something in place first that meant the the public would still get there money if the bank failed.

[techgnome]

That's what the FDIC and the NCUIC (I think that's right) ... in a bank, my deposits are federally insured up to a certain max amount... so that's covered... what isn't is any investments in the stock market... which as far as I am concerned is part of the game.

-tg

[dbasnett]

Like I said, we haven't killed enough people off yet.

[Blakk_Majik]

Banking:
The problem with the current system, as NeedSomeAnswers pointed out, is that a single bank can have many arms (retail, commercial, investment). This led to banks like JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Citibank to gamble with actual deposits from retail and commercial banking deposits.

The problem wasn't that the banks were too big to fail, the problem was that too many of regular people's REAL money was gambled away to beef up profits for shareholders and pay outrageous bonuses.

They should have never, EVER, repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. No sooner than the ink from President Clinton's signature dried on the paper to repeal the act, Citibank was full speed ahead selling mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, among other "exotic" financial instruments. It also helped that GWB and every other federal agency (namely the lame SEC) spent 8 years looking the other way.

Immigration:
AZ is doing what they have to do to fight a growing problem. I agree with the idea of militarizing the border. This is something our troops should be doing, instead of fighting in the interests of companies like Halliburton.