Republicans Are Obsessed With Deregulating Wall Street

a reply to: ketsuko

Ok. Let me start from the beginning? What does "Big Pharma" do? Are they just advertising and marketing for drugs? I mean, who tests and develop drugs? If they just are an advertising business, I agree, why do they need regulations?

ETA Another poster said the universities do the testing.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ketsuko

Ok. Let me start from the beginning? What does "Big Pharma" do? Are they just advertising and marketing for drugs? I mean, who tests and develop drugs? If they just are an advertising business, I agree, why do they need regulations?

ETA Another poster said the universities do the testing.

That's not true. At last where my husband works, a Fortune 500 pharma, there is an R&D department and it is a company wide mandate that no less than 10% of every year's gross revenues must go back to R&D.

Pharma can work in partnership with universities on their smaller scale projects, but the large scale projects, the things that will most likely be sold at large are almost always exclusively in house. And it's all GLP in order to make it acceptable to regulators.

Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) embodies a set of principles that provides a framework within which laboratory studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived. These studies are undertaken to generate data by which the hazards and risks to users, consumers and third parties, including the environment, can be assessed for pharmaceuticals (only preclinical studies), agrochemicals, cosmetics, food additives, feed additives and contaminants, novel foods, biocides, detergents etc.... GLP helps assure regulatory authorities that the data submitted are a true reflection of the results obtained during the study and can therefore be relied upon when making risk/safety assessments.

Which is as close to a universally acceptable standard of lab standards and practice as exists. This should not be confused with something like good sterile technique technique.

The company more or less develops and moves the drug through the pipeline past regulatory to market and continues to make sure via testing and regulatory that each batch (once approved) is up to standards set and agreed upon by the various regulatory agencies of the various markets the product is then sold to. Standards in each market may vary and vary widely.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Edumakated

It sounds good to reign in the big bad banks, but has actually happened is that it is crushing the small guy instead. See the big banks have the resources to deal with all the extra compliance and cost associated, the small credit union or local bank doesn't.

Can you give examples of policies that would be beneficial to small banks and detrimental the big banks?
Just a couple?

I work in mortgage origination. The biggest issue is that Dodd-Frank created the CFPB which basically has unchecked regulatory power. This was the brain child of Elizabeth Warren. While I think the agency's heart is in the right place, their head is in another. They really don't understand the markets that the regulate and how those market function nor the implications of their rules.

As I mentioned, it is difficult to explain to people who don't see it daily as a lot of it is inside baseball stuff but winds up having a serious detrimental effect on consumers.

Where the smaller players are hurt is in the cost of compliance with the regulations. The larger companies can spreadout their cost, but is much harder for smaller companies to absorb these extra costs. Remember, compliance produces ZERO revenue and profit for a company. It is a cost center.

I work for a mid sized player and we literally had to create an entire new department with a number of employees just to ensure we comply with new regulations. They literally do nothing but make sure we properly disclose to consumers when applying for a mortgage because the costs associated with improperly disclosing are extreme.

Here is an example of the nonsense banks have to deal with...

CFPB Guessing Race

Dodd Frank should be renamed the corporate attorney employment act.

When it comes to the argument with banks, wall street, regulations. I will be the first to admit I am way out of my league to argue.

But Looking at the situation with a programmers mind I see conflict in the current laws, the Fannie and Freddy laws were are bad because they force the banks hands to give out the loans. The dodd frank law ties hands of those in the speculation market but isn't the whole market in and of itself speculation?

I can see the why and the good intent of both those laws above but after some time of both we can see they were bad moves. What I wonder is why doesn't congress have to review all laws that are enacted every two years or so, and then

1. Renew them as they stand.
2. Revise them to fix them.
3. Let them expire.

I think that would go a long way into making the system more dynamic and more in will with the voters. The only thing that should not have to be reviewed and renewed every two years coming out of congress should be full blown Amendments.

There problem solved, and those lazy bums on the hill would have something to keep them busy.

CoBaZ

a reply to: ketsuko

I read all that and will take a while to sink in. Ok, but what are they paying doctors for?

originally posted by: CoBaZ
When it comes to the argument with banks, wall street, regulations. I will be the first to admit I am way out of my league to argue.

But Looking at the situation with a programmers mind I see conflict in the current laws, the Fannie and Freddy laws were are bad because they force the banks hands to give out the loans. The dodd frank law ties hands of those in the speculation market but isn't the whole market in and of itself speculation?

I can see the why and the good intent of both those laws above but after some time of both we can see they were bad moves. What I wonder is why doesn't congress have to review all laws that are enacted every two years or so, and then

1. Renew them as they stand.
2. Revise them to fix them.
3. Let them expire.

I think that would go a long way into making the system more dynamic and more in will with the voters. The only thing that should not have to be reviewed and renewed every two years coming out of congress should be full blown Amendments.

There problem solved, and those lazy bums on the hill would have something to keep them busy.

CoBaZ

The problem is lobbyist and lawyers. These laws get written behind closed doors and under lobbyist influence. The bills are too cumbersome to the point that no one really knows what is in it or what the actual agendas are of the people influencing the law.

I have no problem with reasonable regulations, but the regulatory bureaucracy is completely out of control. The problem with regulations is that once they are passed, it is hard to get them changed. Bureaucrats focus on justifying their existence by making rules even is said rules are dumb. The focus is on the process not results.

a reply to: Edumakated

This is similar to how it works with government regulatory across the board. You can't really explain it. I can barely get the gist of it listening to my husband explain it, and maybe Teikiatsu will come on and share more and more accurately since he lives it.

But all too often, the regulators have little to do with the industry, so they little understanding of how it works and they're prone to thinking things that make it very hard for the industry to actually comply in a manner that is ... well, safe really when it comes to pharma. Honestly, let's say you are dealing with a vaccine and immune reaction, the last thing you really want is a regulator who thinks "more is better." Really with any medication, and this should be common sense, more is not always better, but you do wind up with regulators who take that tack.

a reply to: Edumakated

So....you're saying the government created jobs?!



I'm just being silly, I had to...

I still think different sized organizations should be held to different regulations. Just like if I had a company that grew rapidly, I might have to carry different kinds of insurance.

Or, I might be able to sell a cake here or there for cash to a neighbor or friend, but if I want to start doing it professionally, then I need a business license. I guess what I'm saying is that at a certain point, a bank or lending institution should pass into higher regulation territory as it grows.

I bank with a locally owned bank -- they seem to be doing alright (even through the 08 crash). They have bought several smaller local banks in recent years though themselves.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm all for "deregulation" so long as theres no safety net should a bank or investment firm go bankrupt.

Of-course deregulation doesnt mean that you can cheat a customer, thats a crime regardless.

Deregulate everything but make it clear that if the bank fails, government ie the tax slave, will NOT BAIL THEM OUT.

And youll see these firms regulate themselves overnight.

The only reason why they assume so much risk now is because they know that government will come to their rescue.

Uh, that's not true. Complete deregulation literally means complete lawlessness. Regulations are just rules/laws that determine what can & can't be done. So getting rid of those regulations allow banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and more to do whatever they want.

So perhaps there are specific forms of regulations you want abolished. And you may be correct w/those specific regulations. But deregulating everything would be a disaster.

As a basic example, investments can't be rated AAA without many stringent requirements. AAA rated companies & municipalities are supposed to be the safest investments in existence. And many pensions, mutual funds, & other social programs are only allowed to invest in AAA rated investments. This is strictly because of regulations. You take away the regulations on this & anyone's annuity or pension would be subject to the whims of the stock market (and the large market manipulators).

This is also why the major Western ratings companies have been fined billions of dollars over the foreclosure crisis (and resulting stock market crash). Those firms deliberately didn't follow the regulations & even helped some companies hide the true risks of their bundled mortgage packages. So investments were being rated higher than they should have, which screwed over the other firms that bought them (and the funds that purchased them because of their AAA ratings). Completely deregulating the market would have literally made that legal.

In fact, even the FDIC insurance on consumer accounts is directly because of regulations. Who in their right mind would want to get rid that? And remember, the whole Greek financial crisis happened because Wall St. firms helped Greece hide its true financial situation. And a simple look into Goldman Sachs' history of constantly breaking laws & paying fines to settle the cases should show how reckless it would be to deregulate them.

I was just reading the Dodd-Frank wikipedia page and it doesn't seem that bad to me. The regulations aren't that strict compared to many other nations and they will prevent some corruption. I would say the main issue is that the Dodd-Frank regulations contain a lot of fluff that will cost a lot of money and achieve nothing, it doesn't even do what they claimed it would do. They say it's about ending "too big to fail" bailouts but it does almost nothing to prevent such bailouts.

Most people know I'm a libertarian, so I have nothing against regulations which are designed to limit the government spending. I would like to see an end to bailouts because it's seems far too socialist, the tax payer must support a failing business instead of letting that business deal with free market forces. If the Dodd-Frank reforms truly did anything to prevent bailouts for large businesses you would see lobbyists throwing a tantrum left, right, and center. The lobbyists actually want to keep the Dodd-Frank reforms.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — the "top Wall Street lobby" — has expressed support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it in order to prevent a stronger law from passing.[234]

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is seriously some NLP BS sorcery right there. Or maybe they are just relying on the goodwill of uninformed voters. It won't work forever.

I sure hope you are right here...

a reply to: greencmp

You know that was a simple yes or no question. Yet after all those words, I didn't see either a yes or no to actually answer the question. Are you deflecting because you don't want to acknowledge that you don't mind insider trading and prefer it to government saying that banks can't do that thus stepping in to regulate things?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So then, what good is the FDIC label if all those accounts are gone like they never existed?

That's why I said we bail out the bank's customers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


"Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts," said Carly Fiorina, who has never held public office but was once ranked by Portfolio magazine as the 19th-worst American CEO of all time.

This comment really did make me choke on my cereal, the hypocrisy of these people is frightening.

Basically what this idiot is saying is that, socialism is the enemy, except when we need the state to bail us out.

The lot of them are crooks, absolutely rotten to the core.

a reply to: jamespond

It's clear they are just saying things to hear themselves talk. There's an expression for it. Verbal diarrhea.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

You know that was a simple yes or no question. Yet after all those words, I didn't see either a yes or no to actually answer the question. Are you deflecting because you don't want to acknowledge that you don't mind insider trading and prefer it to government saying that banks can't do that thus stepping in to regulate things?

What answer were you fishing for? Of course I don't like collusion, cronyism or corporate espionage but, no amount of "regulation" could ever restrain such outcomes and the creation of an official apparatus to oversee all trades inevitably creates the mechanism that is simply added to the quiver of state sponsored monopolists in the form of regulatory capture.

Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms or political groups to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".

a reply to: greencmp

Just because perfection cannot be achieved or appears to be a daunting task is no reason not to attempt it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Just because perfection cannot be achieved or appears to be a daunting task is no reason not to attempt it.

I guess that is what it boils down to.

originally posted by: greencmp
The subsidies and, therefore, expected returns the state has extended to big oil should have destroyed the reputation of both BP and the federal government. It was clearly not in either's interest for that to happen.

lol!

The governments reputation is already destroyed.... Their approval rating can't get much lower.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job overall, while 63% rate the current Congress poorly.

Rasmussen

Even that catastrophe wasn't enough for the federal government to break ties so, the unholy alliance persevered.

You're damn right it wasn't enough to break ties. Especially considering the amounts of money they lobbied with.

That BP lobbied lawmakers on the penalties companies faced for spills, as it faced penalties for causing a spill itself, underscores how even the most embattled company often sees Congress as a worthy investment. BP spent $8.43 million in 2011 on efforts to influence legislation. While that total fell far short of the nearly $16 million it spent on lobbying in 2009 -- much of it on working to defeat cap and trade legislation -- it represented a $1 million uptick from 2010 levels. It was also about .0324 percent of the company's $26 billion in profits from last year: a small price to pay to ensure the preferred legislative outcomes for the firestorm it ignited.

“It really is outrageous that after being responsible for the largest oil spill in our nation’s history, BP spent more than $8 million on D.C. lobbyists to try, among other things, to escape any effort to shut off the spigot of taxpayer subsidies,” Menendez told The Huffington Post.

Huff Post

Now who's the captain of the ship in this arrangement?