StrangeSox Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I was speaking of regulatory space in general, not specifically in finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) I was speaking of regulatory space in general, not specifically in finance. Well sure, breaking into the nuclear plant business is going to have IMMENSE regulatory hurdles, in addition to lots of technological and capital ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Regulation isn't as huge a hurdle as you are making it out to be. Especially for smaller firms trying to edge into trading or brokerage. The bigger hurdles are capital requirements, and the good ol boy networks in place. Regulation is scalar-plus in relation to firm size in finance. The bigger you are, the regulatory and compliance costs go up at a greater rate than the overall size of your firm. More specifically, the more products you offer your customers, the quicker your costs scale up. The size thing is also very true. Much more to investigate at a Goldman Sachs versus a start up. There is a reason their compliance department is massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Well sure, breaking into the nuclear plant business is going to have IMMENSE regulatory hurdles, in addition to lots of technological and capital ones. That's where I was today and what came to mind, though it certainly isn't the only one. This paper examines regulatory barriers to entry in developing economies but conceptually they touch on developed ones as well: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publicati...20sept%2028.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Well sure, breaking into the nuclear plant business is going to have IMMENSE regulatory hurdles, in addition to lots of technological and capital ones. That's where I was today and what came to mind, though it certainly isn't the only one. This paper examines regulatory barriers to entry in developing economies but conceptually they touch on developed ones as well: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publicati...20sept%2028.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Don't worry everyone, you can all rest easy. Congress appears ready to successfully overturn a socialist, imperialist, communist-fascist effort by the White House to declare horribly that Pizza is not a vegetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Things more popular than Congress right now. Banks Nixon during watergate BP during the oil spill The U.S. becoming a communist country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners how Liberals have disappeared from the media. How long have we been saying this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 US Debt hit $15T. Scary stuff. The GOP is out in chorus decrying it, which I totally agree with... then they blame Obama for it. What planet are some of these guys on? If they want to say that $15T of debt is dangerous to our nation in a multitude of ways, I'll agree. If you want to say we should elect leaders who will work to reduce that, I'll very definitely agree. If you want to say that (current) Republicans are, on the whole, more likely to address that problem... I'll agree to that too! But Obama's fault? Come back to earth. Who took us from a budget surplus to massive deficits we can't get out of for a decade? Oh yeah, GOP-controlled Congress... many of the same shmoes who are out there yelling about it now. Iraq War? Afghanistan? Adding all sorts of layers of bureaucracy to the federal government? Ramping on even non-war spending on the military and massive rates? Cutting taxes for millionaires all the while? Tax and spend is bad. Spend and spend is worse, and that is what they've been doing. So don't give me that bulls***. If some of these right-wing folks would actually admit that THEY THEMSELVES made many of the mistakes that got us into this mess, and if they were actually willing to make comprimises on the budget deals to fix said mess... then I might respect them. No? Then shut the f*** up. Sorry, nothing new here, just needed to air it out. --- On a happier note, I loved the will power article on CNN from two former moderates. And I love that Dick Durbin, who I usually detest, is at least attempting to provide some leadership in the budget negotiations. Tom Coburn too, again usually despise the guy, but on this he seems to be making some effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Bulls*** they will address that problem. The only problem they will address is lowering taxes. They won't address health care which is the main cause of our debt. They are frauds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 06:56 PM) Bulls*** they will address that problem. The only problem they will address is lowering taxes. They won't address health care which is the main cause of our debt. They are frauds. Actually, the 2 main causes of our debt right now are 1. Upper income tax cuts, 2. The current economic climate wiht 9% unemployment, and 3. Unpaid for wars. The #1 dominates because that's what built the majority of it over a 30 year period. THe last couple trillion appeared because then there was a finance-industry driven collapse of the entire system. Long term, the driver of our debt becomes the fact that health care costs are growing at inflation + 8%. But that's long term. It's still not a huge driver,yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 07:19 PM) Actually, the 2 main causes of our debt right now are 1. Upper income tax cuts, 2. The current economic climate wiht 9% unemployment, and 3. Unpaid for wars. The #1 dominates because that's what built the majority of it over a 30 year period. THe last couple trillion appeared because then there was a finance-industry driven collapse of the entire system. Long term, the driver of our debt becomes the fact that health care costs are growing at inflation + 8%. But that's long term. It's still not a huge driver,yet. So glad we focused on that for a year instead of how to create jobs and get the economy rolling again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 08:50 PM) So glad we focused on that for a year instead of how to create jobs and get the economy rolling again. Well yeah. People tell me the deficit is a problem. Not sure I agree. But the PPACA solved more than half that problem (according to the same people who tell us we have a long term debt.) Remarkable thing is...after the PPACA, if Congress did nothing...there is no long term deficit. The CBO agrees. The long term deficit doesn't exist if you don't extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts, keep redoing the amt fix, and starting new wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 http://www.congressmanwithguts.com/?track=googseo YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) Bulls*** they will address that problem. The only problem they will address is lowering taxes. They won't address health care which is the main cause of our debt. They are frauds. Health care is not the main cause of our debt, though Medicare is a part of the problem. Not sure where you are getting that. Also, I didn't say they would fix everything, or fix that - but that they, as a whole, are more likely to address debt and deficit issues than Democrats. And its true. Which is not to say that I entirely agree with them, as I do not, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) Health care is not the main cause of our debt, though Medicare is a part of the problem. Not sure where you are getting that. Also, I didn't say they would fix everything, or fix that - but that they, as a whole, are more likely to address debt and deficit issues than Democrats. And its true. Which is not to say that I entirely agree with them, as I do not, at all. Who is "they"? I really hope you don't mean Republicans, because that'd be a pretty absurd claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) Who is "they"? I really hope you don't mean Republicans, because that'd be a pretty absurd claim. It would be absurd to say that the Republicans can't fix everything? I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) It would be absurd to say that the Republicans can't fix everything? I'm confused. No, it'd be absurd to say that they're more likely to address the debt and deficit since they're largely responsible for it and refuse to do anything but cut social spending and cut taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Sigh. Group of Christmas tree farmers approaches the department of Agriculture in 2008, proposes adding a $.15 "Fee" on to the sale of Christmas trees. The fee would be entirely dedicated to funding advertising encouraging people to purchase christmas trees. Something similar to the "Got Milk", "Pork the Other White Meat", and "Beef it's what's for dinner" campaigns. After 3 years of study, a comment period where hundreds of growers commented and gave a 90% positive response rate, agreement is reached to add $.15 to the price of live Christmas trees to fund advertising. Again, entirely proposed by the growers, supported by the growers, Government only serves as an enabler so that the money can be collected and pooled nationally. Of course, the Right wing freaks out about Obama's war on Christmas trees with his new tax. And it takes about a week for the administration to give up on the proposal and delay it indefinitely. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) No, it'd be absurd to say that they're more likely to address the debt and deficit since they're largely responsible for it and refuse to do anything but cut social spending and cut taxes. You think the Democrats are more likely to cut down deficits than the GOP, right now, today? Now THAT is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) Sigh. Group of Christmas tree farmers approaches the department of Agriculture in 2008, proposes adding a $.15 "Fee" on to the sale of Christmas trees. The fee would be entirely dedicated to funding advertising encouraging people to purchase christmas trees. Something similar to the "Got Milk", "Pork the Other White Meat", and "Beef it's what's for dinner" campaigns. After 3 years of study, a comment period where hundreds of growers commented and gave a 90% positive response rate, agreement is reached to add $.15 to the price of live Christmas trees to fund advertising. Again, entirely proposed by the growers, supported by the growers, Government only serves as an enabler so that the money can be collected and pooled nationally. Of course, the Right wing freaks out about Obama's war on Christmas trees with his new tax. And it takes about a week for the administration to give up on the proposal and delay it indefinitely. Sigh. Why the f*** should the government be taxing the purchase of christmas trees simply to aid growers in an advertising campaign. Even if it's a penny it's a waste of government resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) Why the f*** should the government be taxing the purchase of christmas trees simply to aid growers in an advertising campaign. Even if it's a penny it's a waste of government resources. That's the part that puzzles me. If the growers want to get together with the sellers and add 15 cents to each tree to fund advertising that helps all of them, great, go ahead. Why get the government involved in an advertising campaign at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) Why the f*** should the government be taxing the purchase of christmas trees simply to aid growers in an advertising campaign. Even if it's a penny it's a waste of government resources. Plus it is just absurd. You want to tax people to subsidize your own advertising campaign? Here's an idea, if you want an advertising campaign, pay for it yourselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:31 AM) You think the Democrats are more likely to cut down deficits than the GOP, right now, today? Now THAT is absurd. Sure, let the Bush tax cuts expire=take a big chunk out of the deficits. Expand the Bush tax cuts permanently while cutting even more from the top brackets, capital gains and corporate taxes=expand the deficit. That's not to say that the Democrats actually care about reducing the deficit as some sort of central policy goal. It's just disingenuous to claim that the Republicans actually care about the deficit beyond using it as an excuse to cut the same social programs they've always railed against while protecting all of their own spending and refusing to raise revenues, instead actually advocating for deeper reductions in revenue. Edited November 18, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) Plus it is just absurd. You want to tax people to subsidize your own advertising campaign? Here's an idea, if you want an advertising campaign, pay for it yourselves! I'd agree that the merits of this are pretty dumb, but less dumb than characterizing it as a "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts