Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
I'm not a fan of nanny state regulations, including current nanny state regulations demanding that banks make credit more available, which is part of how we got here.
I'd leave it to the banks with the penalty that if they screw up, the government doesn't bail them out. Smart bankers will wise up pretty quickly. Stupid ones will be out of business.
|
You aren't a fan of "nanny state" regulations, or you aren't a fan of those you don't benefit from?
One benefit of a reasonable regulatory environment is a stable banking system. Failures are disruptive, and are largely preventable. This has been the case in the Canadian system, which hasn't seen a failure in decades. And with the exception of two small regional banks, there haven't been any bank failures since
before the Depression.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have a set of rules that banks must follow to avoid the kind of shit that happened in the U.S. beginning in 2008.
Call them "nanny state" regulations if you want, but they serve their purpose and they do it well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
this is about a craven attempt to exploit conservative media domination in order to generate a problem that the right can then spin with the idea in mind of getting the only thing that matters to conservatives, really---->power.
|
Things are going to get interesting in November.
