Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_quark
Citation needed? I'm curious to know the details surrounding these mysterious "strict and complicated" regulations, what they are in place for, and in what ways it can be unequivocally demonstrated that they are the direct cause of mass layoffs.
|
lol so off topic. My feelings mainly stemmed from this article (faux news maaan) but layoffs are pretty much widespread in the financial sector. And considering the Dodd-Frank bill, where every little thing had to be cross checked with the FDIC, how is it not complicated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_quark
It's far more complex than that.
|
When you break it down, ensuring strong consumer protection is pretty much that tbh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_quark
So basically what I'm gathering from your post is that effective regulations are better than ineffective ones. Well, with all due respect, no shit. Nobody's contesting that. But people who want to bring effective regulations to the table are "typical liberals" who scream for "moar gubmint"? I'm confused.
|
Nice impersonation. I was wrong though. ACORN picketing and suing banks to provide loans to low credit income families and comply with the Community Reinvestment Act is totally liberals bringing more effective regulations to the table. Same with HUD making Housing GSEs issue mortgages to families under the median income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_quark
Now wait a minute. You just listed quite a few restrictions on mortgages that Canada has and the US lacks. Those restrictions were put in place by legislation, a.k.a. regulations. So how does Canada's housing market have "less government involvement" again? If anything, there's more "government involvement" and more regulation than the US has. I don't believe for a second that Canada regulates its lenders less than the US does. Could it be that Canada's success is attributable to regulating their lenders so they aren't handing out high-risk loans to anyone who can dot an "I" and cross a "T"?
|
?... Because in Canada the government isn't in the mortgage business...mortgages are tightly regulated yes, but we don't have massive GSE's (which conveniently contribute millions to candidates or you know, are actually being sued by the SEC). We don't have housing sector laws like the US. That's why I brought up Fannie May and Freddie Mac (or even the CRA I mentioned above).
Again, Americans can walk away from a loan, Canadians are held strictly responsible for their home. It's putting the regulations on the buyers. Believe it or not but nothing in Canadas banking regulations bans lender risk taking. They're just smart enough not to do it just to make a quick profit.
We don't really have "more regulations", just better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_quark
The subprime mortgage crisis in the US is directly attributable to lack of government oversight and accountability on the part of lenders. It most certainly was not due to "too much government." I for one am quite curious as to how the supposedly overregulated lender Wells Fargo managed to make $49 billion in profit from 2008 to 2010 while paying absolutely no taxes and even receiving a tax rebate of $681,000,000. Yep, obviously too much government tying their hands.
|
Not too much government or over regulation, but government incompetence. And any government incompetence is always too much. Strawman much? What exactly do tax breaks from 4 years ago have to do with subprime mortgages? That's hardly the same thing.