So at what point are big banks ever going to be held accountable?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL, you don't believe that. You would have no idea what cars had been rolled back. Dealer A might have a solid reputation but they can do nothing about a car getting traded in from a dealer that rolled back miles or that I did in my garage.
Sorry, if this is what you are stuck arguing, you know you have no arguement.
Can you address my point instead of dodging? Why is this issue any of the government's concern?
Can you address my point instead of dodging? Why is this issue any of the government's concern?
I adressed why. Without agreed rules and regulations there becomes no trust in anything. Don't ask me to address something that has already been addressed.
The only reason people put their money back into the banks was because of the FDIC. Now if you want to argue that regulations without enforcement are no better than no regulations, I will agree with that.
I adressed why. Without agreed rules and regulations there becomes no trust in anything. Don't ask me to address something that has already been addressed.
The only reason people put their money back into the banks was because of the FDIC. Now if you want to argue that regulations without enforcement are no better than no regulations, I will agree with that.
I strongly disagree with this. Without rules and regulation, economies flourish. If one company becomes corrupt, another company start up and takes its place. No one forces you to use any company/product/service in a free market system, whereas they do in a regulated society.
No regulation is MUCH better for a macroeconomic climate of a nation than a highly regulated one.
I strongly disagree with this. Without rules and regulation, economies flourish. If one company becomes corrupt, another company start up and takes its place. No one forces you to use any company/product/service in a free market system, whereas they do in a regulated society.
No regulation is MUCH better for a macroeconomic climate of a nation than a highly regulated one.
It's funny how one changes their arguments mid stream. I was not argueing for a highly regulated economy. There is middle ground.
I never once mentioned Bush and the CRA so quit making up positions for me and screw off.
You said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Stop it. It was (and is) a failure from both ends. It's completely dishonest to try and blame only one side of the equation no matter which side you want to blame.
...are you denying that?
It was Carter and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate who enacted the CRA in 1977, and it was the Clinton Administration who issued executive orders circumventing the Republican-controlled House and Senate in 1995.
Those are the facts, which I presented to you, including quotes from the press conference.
You failed to rebut the facts. You lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Does this in any way address my point?
Are you gong to address the facts, or continue to live in ignorance?
Questioning....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
End the Fed and we will end all the madness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The Fed is a large reason people do not trust. Without the Fed the distrust would be smaller in nature which would lead to fewer regulations.
Right. Let's have a national bank instead of a national bank called the Federal Reserve. That really makes a lot of sense.
In the 18 year period 1984-2002, the value of the British Pound Sterling declined 49%.
In other words, 1 Pound Sterling in 1984 was only worth 51 Pence just 18 years later.
Or, you could say that in 1984, 1 Pound Sterling was equal to 1 Pound and 98 Pence (2002 Pound Sterling).
So, who here on this forum would like to dump the Federal Reserve in favor of a central bank, like the Bank of England?
Because, as we all know, having your currency devalued nearly 50% in a mere 18 years is much better than having your currency devalued 50% over 50 years, right?
I am not denying that I said both sides are to blame which said nothing about Bush or the CRA. Since your style seems to be among those who like to make up points for others to then argue against, there is little reason for me to continue as you've shown what people actually write means little to you.
The existence of the Fed IS a highly regulated economy. We are already there...I am not changing my argument. Can you actually answer my question?
It was clearly answered. You simple have no reply to offer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
